b MIMULUS LUTEUS AND SOME OF ITS ALLIES. 



moreover, the most extreme differences in the form of the calyx in 

 different species had all escaped his notice, and everything was a 

 part of his "^J. hitnis.'' And thus the only part of the M. Inteus 

 paragraph in the great volume to which I refer which has any value 

 is the synonymy, for that indicates that a goodly number of authors 

 earlier than Gray had taken more notice of things, and had recognized 

 several species. 



One immediate effect of my own endeavour to bring order out of 

 this confusion was that the author of the Si/nopticnl Flora at once 

 undertook an examination — perhaps the first careful and serious 

 examination — of his own herbarium materials ; and this resulted in 

 the early publication of a Supplement to his volume, in which he 

 l)resented seven well-defined species in place of the confused and 

 impossible " M. lutcus" of the body of that work. On new characters 

 of stem, leaf, and calyx, characters first made use of in the Cali- 

 fornia Academy paper, he found it necessary to restore, out of those 

 which he had formerly suppressed, 21. dentatus Nutt. and M. 

 Scouleri Hook., to admit the perfect validity of M. r/Umcescens, 

 nudatus, and iiasutiis, which I had named and defined as new, and 

 also to establish a new species of his own out of the same former 

 aggregate, M. Si(ksd(>r/ii. This forced recession from the Benthamian 

 ground concerning M. luteiis, which Gray up to 1885 had supported, 

 lacked a single step of being complete. He did not know how to 

 distinguish the North American M. gnttatiis DC, but continued to 

 regard that as identical with M. luteus of South America. 



DeCandolle in 1813 gave six differential characters by which to 

 distinguish liis plant from M. JutcjiH. One of these, the hairiness 

 of the corolla within, does not hold, for it is common to both. But 

 the other characters are abundantly sufficient, and as I maintained 

 in 1885. But, after all, it is by the forms of the corolla in the two 

 species that we shall find a most unquestionable character. In true 

 M. luteus and also in M. cupreus and some other South American 

 allies, the corolla has a much narrower tube, and a more regular 

 limb. In the North American plants that come nearest these spe- 

 cies the corolla-tube expands quite abruptly into a broad throat, 

 and the lobes of tlie limb are not only more unequ.al in size, but 

 they do not spread rotately and evenly; the uppermost pair of lobes 

 are reflexed somewhat after the manner of those of an AntiirJdnum ; 

 the whole corolla thus being very distinctly bilabiate. This same 

 floral character does recur in certain South American species, but 

 not in M. luteus. It is also true that quite the even and regular 

 corolla of the South American type is found in certain North 

 American species also, such as M. moschatus and primuloides ; but 

 these are not of the luteus group. 



In going again over the history of these plants, I have dis- 

 covered that M. La7if/sdo7-Jii is an older name than M. ;/uttatus for 

 the North American type of this group ; and there are some new 

 varieties to be proposed. 



M. Langsdorffu Donn in Sims, Bot. Mag., under t. 1501, as a 

 synonym of M. luteus (Oct. 1812); also Donn, Cat. Cantab. 182 

 (1812). M. guttatus DC. Cat. Mousp. 127 (1813). M. luteus Pursh, 



