20 JOURNAL OF THE ARNOLD ARBORETUM [vol. i 



borderline runs northward through eastern Colorado (where it seems not to 

 cross the 103rd degree W. L.), Wyoming and La'v\Tence and Harding Coun- 

 ties in western Soulli Dakota (Black Hills, fide Ball ^ and Vislier) to Mon- 

 tana (where it seems to be present only in the south and west; I have seen 

 specimens from Carbon, Gallatin, Jefferson, Powell, Sanders and Flat Head 

 Counties). In the north I know var. caudaia from eastern Kootcnay 

 (Famie) in British Columbia, and from Calgary in All>erta. The western 

 borderline ^ runs from Yale district in British Columbia southward 

 through Washington (east of the Cascades), Oregon (Umatilla, Wallowa, 

 Union, Morrow, Malheur and Klamath Counties) to Nevada (Waslioe, 

 Ormsby, Elko, Lincoln Counties) and part of the northeastern slopes of the 

 Sierra Nevada in California (viz., A. Eastwood, No. 38G, Placer County, 

 Deer Park, Heller, No. 12720, Yuba Riv^er below Cisco and several si>cci- 

 mens of Dudley's from Sierra County). In the south I have seen it 

 from Utah (southward to Piute and Washington Counties) but not from 

 Arizona. The ty])ical form of var. caudata^ according to Nuttall, is that 

 with " ramulis junioribus hirsutis," and as it is the case with other species 

 of this group we can also distinguish a glabrous form. I should regard 

 var. caudata as a good species were it not for a series of forms which look 

 rather intermediate between it and typical S. lasiandra. It may be that 

 these intermediates might be regarded as hybrids but at present I think 

 it best to defer a more decisive statement until I have been able to become 

 better acquainted w^ith certain forms of eastern California, western Nevada, 

 southwestern Colorado, eastern Oregon and western Idaho. Very inter- 

 esting are the specimens from Tulare County, California, mentioned on 

 p. 18 which look more like var. caudata than typical S. lasiandra. It nuiy 

 be that these forms with small and narrow leaves together with similar 

 ones from Sierra, Nevada, Placer and Eldorado Counties represent a new 

 variety which is most closely related to var, caudata but possesses the 

 same glaucescent lower leaf-surface as the t;^i^ical S. lasiandra. 



7. S. lucida Muhlenberg in Neue Schr. Ges. Naturf. Fr. Berlin, iv. 239, 



t. 6, fig. 7 (1803); in Konig & Sims, Ann. But. ii. G6, t. 5, fig. 7 (1800). 



Michaux f., Hist. Arb. Am. iii. 327, t. 5, fig. 3 (1813); N. Am. Sylva iii. 

 81, t. 125, fig. 3 (1819). — Pursh, Fl. Am. Sept. ii. (il5 (1814). — Hooker, 

 Fl. Bor.-Am. ii. 148 (1839), pro parte, et prob. inch var. 0. — Barratt, 

 Sahc, Am. No. 17 (1840). — Torrey, Fl. N.Y. ii. 208, t. 119 (1843). 

 Carey in Gray, Man. 417 (1848); ed. 2, 417 (1856); ed. 3, 417 (1862); ed. 4, 



^ I have seen the specimens cited by Rail from Roehford, (F. Murdock, Jr., Xo. 4375, st.; 

 C.) and the Deadwood plant has been collected by Ball himself. On the other hand neither 

 he nor Visher mentions 8. lucida from this region, but there is a specimen before me collected 

 by W. P. Carr, Deadwood, creek banks. July 10.13 (Xo. 44?, st.; M.) which undoubtedly is S. 

 lucida. as determined by Rydberg. In Herb. C. (sheet No. 385835) there is a sterile specimen 

 of Visher's No. 112 from Little Missouri River, July 23, 1010, named ^^. Fendleriana which be- 

 longs to an entirely <liffercnt section. 



2 Ball (1900) gives the range as *'New Mexico to Canada and west to the coast" but he 

 does not mention var. caudaia (1915) in Piper & Beattie, Fl. X.W. Coast. So far as 1 know it is 

 absent from the coast region. 



