334 Rydberg : Rocky Mountain flora 



Chaenactis 

 Chaenactis achilleaefolia H. & A. and C. pedicularia Greene are 

 both reduced in the New Manual, the former to a variety of C. 

 Douglasii, the latter to a synonym of C. alpina. I think that both 

 should be kept up as species. The characters separating the former 

 from C. Douglasii are not so much the dwarf habit and reduced 

 crowded segments of the leaves, for such conditions are found in the 

 true C. Douglasii, as the permanent tomentum and the longer and 

 acute pappus-scales. C. alpina is subscapose with peduncles 2-7 

 cm. long and its involucre is much shorter than the corollas. C. 

 pedicularia has leafy although short stems, very short peduncles 

 1-2 cm. long, and involucral bracts, in the specimens seen, fully as 

 long as the flowers. Apparently C. pedicularia is the same as C. 

 Douglasii, var. montana M. E. Jones,* of which the author states 

 that it has been confused with C. alpina, but at the same time 

 points out several distinctions. 



Chamaechaenactis 

 In reviewing Coulter & Nelson's New Manual, Dr. B. L. Robin- 

 son f stated: "No mention, for instance, is made of Encelia nutans 

 Eastwood and Chaenactis scaposa Eastwood." This is not exactly 

 true, for the latter is included in the New Manual. It was not 

 strange, however, that Dr. Robinson should overlook the fact, 

 for who would expect to find it under the name Actinella carnosa 

 A. Nels.? I doubt if Professor Nelson has seen any specimens, for 

 if he had I do not think he would have transferred it to Actinella, 

 The description in the New Manual is a verbatim copy of Miss 

 Eastwood's description. The plant is evidently more closely re- 

 lated to Chaenactis, in which genus it was first placed, than to 

 Actinella. If Professor Nelson was unwilling to adopt my generic 

 name Chamaechaenactis , it would have been much better to re- 

 tain the species in Chaenactis than to transfer it to Actinella, where 

 it is wholly out of place. Besides, Chamaechaenactis is fully as 

 good as Nelson's own genera Tonestus and Wyomingia, and far 

 more so than Nacrea and Enomegra. The last has no scientific 

 standing at all, being distinguished from Argemone only by the 



* Proc. California Acad. Sci. II. 5 : 700. 1895. 

 fRhodora 12: 16. 1910. 



