Rydberg : Rocky Mountain flora 465 



difference is the more distinct toothing of the leaves of the former 

 and the tendency of the upper stem-lea\'es to be narrower and 

 more distinctly auriculate-clasping. 5'. cohimhianus and 5. per- 

 plexus are really more closely related to each other than S. dispar 

 A. Nels. is to S. perplexiis, of which Professor Nelson has made 

 it a variety. 



Both Senecio Harhourii Rydb. and S. HoiveUii Greene have 

 been made synonyms of S. caniis. Before I published the former 

 I visited the Gray Herbarium and had a conference with Dr. 

 Greenman. I found that two of the species I had in manuscript 

 he also intended to publish, viz., S. Harhourii Rydb. and S. 

 multicapitatus Greenm. I published the latter under Greenman's 

 name, and retained my own for the former. S. multicapitatus 

 Greenm., Professor Nelson reduces to a synonym of S. RiddelUi 

 T. & G. I know that at least a few years ago. Dr. Greenman, 

 our best student of Senecio, regarded both S. Harhourii and S. 

 multicapitatus as good species. In Piper's Flora of Washington,* 

 S. Hoii'ellii is kept distinct from S. canus. The manuscript of 

 the genus was prepared by the aid of Dr. Greenman. 



Senecio salicinus Rydb., S. canovirens Rydb., and S. lanatifolius 

 Osterhout are given as synonyms of S. Fendleri. S. salicinus is 

 more closely related to S. rosulatus Rydb. than to S. Fendleri. 

 The other two are somewhat related to 6". Fendleri but I think 

 perfectly distinct, having an altogether different foliage. S. 

 lanatifolius has besides discoid heads. 



Regarding Senecio rosulatus Rydb., I may say that when that 

 species was proposed we had but one sheet of S. Nelsonii and 

 that not a duplicate of the type. This sheet bears two undeveloped 

 plants, one of them evidently belonging to the variety uintahensis. 

 My conception of S. Nelsonii was therefore rather S. uintahensis 

 A. Nels. I am willing therefore to accept S. rosulatus as a syn- 

 onym. 



Senecio uintahensis A. Nels. is related to S. multilobatus T. 

 & G., as Nelson indicates; but the latter is not a winter annual 

 or biennial, but a perennial with a tap-root, just as S. uintahensis 

 is. t The main differences are that S. multilohatus is more glabrous, 



*Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 11: 599- 



fSee Bull. Torrey Club 27: 170 and 172. 



