48 Contributions to Western Botany. [ZOE 
gravel on mesas. Blooms in May and fruitsin June. I alterthe 
name because there is another Cymopterus Jonesit. Oil tubes 
similar but 8-12 on the commissure. Plate XXV, figs. B 1, B 2 
Siete Parryt (C. &. R.) Colopiera Parryi C. & R. Rev. 
o. Leaves bipinnate and divisions usually small, involucre 
sient (?), wings of fruit scarcely corky thickened, and dorsal 
ones almost equally developed, oil tubes one or two more than 
in C. Newberryi. Northwestern Wyoming, Parry. - Plate XXV, 
figs. A 1, A2. 
To the above is doubtless to be referred Cymopterus decipiens, 
Jones, Zoe ii, 246, but this differs in having a hyaline involucre, 
though small, corky lateral wings, and well developed dorsal 
ones. Southeastern Utah, on clayey and sandy plains, growing 
along with C. Newderryi, and seeming to pass into it. It flowers 
in May and fruits in May and June. Though I first described 
this as often without an involucre, I find traces of one in every 
plant in my collection as given above. It would be readily over- 
looked by almost anyone in most cases. 
Since the above was written Miss Eastwood has sent me, from 
Southeastern Utah, a specimen of undoubted C. Parryi, every 
peduncle of which has an involucre as described above. My 
surmise was therefore correct, and C. decipiens may be sup- 
pressed, being a synonym for C. Parryt. 
In the plate accompanying this article the wings of C. glomer- 
atus fig. C, were made too narrow at the apex. Seeds of other 
species figured are C. /ongzpes fig. F, C. /bapensis fig. E, C. -Jonesii 
g.G. The figures are taken from the seeds without soaking 
them up as that generally swells them out of all proportion and 
distorts the wings. have made no effort to show other seed 
characters beside the wings. 
Cymopterus glaucus, Watson. I see that Coulter and Rose in 
their Rev. Umbelliferze, p. 81, say that my No. 1688 is this 
species, but itis not. Itis probably Cymopterus Ibapensis, butis 
only in flower. C. glaucus is my No. 1687. My numbers never 
have been duplicated, so it is not necessary to give either the 
year or the locality of collection, the number tells it all. It is 
probable that some one has transposed the labels of the two 
