Rydberg : Rocky Mountain flora 449 



familien, i. e., including Adenophyllum, Hymenatherum, Aci- 

 phyllaea, Thymophylla, and Loivellia. If so, the name Dy^odia 

 papposa (Vent.) Hitch, and D. aurea (A. Gray) A. Nels. can be 

 used ; but if these genera are to be regarded as distinct or if they 

 are limited as by Gray and by Hemsley, the names are not the 

 correct ones. The monotype of Dyssodia Cav. (originally spelled 

 with two 5's), is D. Porophyllum = Adenophyllum Hemsl., which 

 is not congeneric with either of these species according to Hemsley. 

 The only available generic names for the two species of the Rocky 

 Mountain region would be Boehera Willd. and Loivellia A. Gray, 

 respectively. 



Artemisia 



The treatment of Artemisia in the New Manual of the Central 

 Rocky Mountains is very unsatisfactory. The author has kept 

 up five of his own species and reduced every species proposed by 

 any one else since 1884 and some before that year, either to syn- 

 onymy or else to a variety of some older species, except Artemisia 

 saxicola Rydb., which was a substitute for the North American 

 so-called A. norvegica. Now let us see what the facts really are. 

 There are only two species of Professor Nelson's that I am in- 

 clined to uphold, viz., Artemisia aromatica and A. nova. In such 

 a "conservative" work as the New Manual generally is, even 

 these ought to have been reduced to varieties. 



It is questionable if Artemisia aromatica A. Nels. can be kept 

 specifically distinct from A. dracunculoides. The latter is fully 

 as common in the Rockies as is ^. aromatica, and even one speci- 

 men distributed from the University of Wyoming and named 

 A. aromatica, Viz., Goodding 602, is typical A. dracunculoides. 

 Also an older specimen. Nelson 246Q, belongs here. 



Artemisia nova A. Nels. was not altogether new when it was 

 described. In fact, several specimens were found in herbaria 

 before that time under the name Artemisia arhiiscula. If I am 

 not mistaken, it constituted a part of Nuttall's original A. ar- 

 buscula, although the description fits better the other part, which 

 therefore may be regarded as the type. Dr. Gray* states: "Two 

 forms, passing into each other (both collected by Nuttall, * * *); 

 one with involucres more campanulate, 7-9-flowered; in the other 

 oblong and only 4-5-flowered." The latter is A. nova A. Nels, 



*Syn. Fl. l"-: 374. 



