loides and relegated D. Wrightii to synonymy handling 
the obvious lack of agreement between the two descrip- 
tions with the following comment: ‘*. .. Dunal in DC. 
Prodr. |.c. 544 (the descr. and drawing of Mocino and 
Sesse wrong as to 10-dentate corolla).”” This erroneous 
interpretation was adopted by Safford (1921) who appar- 
ently followed Gray. 
It is obvious from Dunal’s monograph (1852) that he 
had no knowledge of Datura inowia Mill. (Miller, 1786) 
which, since it is apparently identical with D. meteloides, 
enjoys priority. Miss Helen Timmerman (1927), although 
recognizing the problem existing in the literature, failed 
to reach a satisfactory conclusion regarding D. meteloides 
and JD. inoxia probably due to insufficient material at 
hand. 
Recently, Ewan (1944) became cognizant of the pro- 
blem concerning the discrepancy between the description 
of Datura meteloides sensu DC. and our perennial south- 
western species commonly known by that name. In at- 
tempting to unravel this confusion he presented an ex- 
cellent account of the historical backgrounds of both D. 
meteloides and D. Wrightiit. His conclusion that de Can- 
dolle’s D. meteloides **cannot be shown to be a misapplied 
binomial because no other species of Datura has been 
found in central Mexico which agrees with the original 
description nor the drawing upon which it is based’’ is 
hardly acceptable due to the ample herbarium material 
of D. inoawia at hand. Furthermore, his reeommendation 
that the name to be applied to our perennial species 
should be D. Wrightii, provided the identity of D. mete- 
loides DC. ex Dunal cannot be ascertained, requires 
more thought. His proposal that the collection C. Wright 
no. 526 (US 60042) be designated as lectotype of D. 
Wrightu with Turkey Creek, Uvalde-Kinney Co. line, 
‘Texas as type locality appears to be a wise choice, but, 
[ 247 ] 
