CONTRIBUTIONS TO WESTERN BOTANY NO. IS 13 



adhere to this view. But when Rydberg tries to split up the Hamosi he 

 makes a mess of it. He makes the wholly unwarranted assumption that 

 J assumed Astragalus hamosus as the type of my group, which is not true. 

 If he were consistent he would make a new genus of Astragalus calycosus, 

 which to all intents and purposes is an Oxytropis- I huve published a 



pecul 



ensiformis 



collected, and which no one else has ever seen, in his Tricarinatae. The 

 question now is what will he do with A. cibarius, its nearest ally? These 

 fleshy-podded species have no place there. 



As was to be expected Rydberg still mare attenuates the A. Nutta- 

 lianus group, making fake species out of many forms, which are not 

 worthy of extended consideration. But I am glad that he has at last 

 got a chance to correct his own blunders and make more. 



In No. 280 Rydberg has a chance to elucidate A. Mexicanus, but he 

 adds nothing to show that this supposed species is a good one, and there 

 is little evidence that it is any good. 



, ^ In No. 280 Rydberg is very sure that I am wrong most of tlie time, 

 which is refreshing, and that he who has spent little time on the genus 

 is always right, which is also refreshing. 



In No. 272 Rydberg reverts to Astragalus vespertinus, which is the 

 form of A. amphixys most common in the Navajo Basin. I have col- 

 lected this in all sorts of forms, and have many times been confused as to 

 just where to put it, and a m still of the opinion that it may 'infergrade 

 with some of the species with net-veined pods (pygmaeus). I have the 

 advantage of him in having collected the specimens (all of them) on 

 which he comments, and for that reason should 



than he can. 



know more about tliem 



number of blunders 



nf this group, for the reason that at the time I did not suppose that 

 Watson and Gray knew so little about them as I afterward found out. 

 . It was years before I was forced to abandon following Watson and Gray 

 ii> their ideas of the genetic relationship of Astragali, and of the identity 

 of several species, and nothing but extensive field work ever solved -the 

 problems for me, work which Rydberg never did and never will do. 



No. 253 Rydberg tries to perpetuate Ihe blunders of Pyper and other's 

 in the Gibbsi group. He also misspells Astragalus Alvordensis. 



In the same number Rydberg tries to keep up the Kentrophyta segre- 

 gates, which are impossible. Curiously he omits mention of A. humflli- 

 mus altogether, which he would have to put' here if he knew it. 



Astragalus Robbinsii. Rydberg, Torreya Vol 24 p. 98 pIus,-'^does 

 more hair splitting in regard to Astragalus Robbinsii. There is no one 



species of plants m the far north 



rrr 



species. In the^'Grav 



Herbarium is a specimen of Michaux's A. secundus, which is the tvT>e^o'f 



podSy ind 



