^4. CONTRIBUTIONS TO WESTERN BOTANY NO. 15 



includdff th^ pirion, which he seems to think is distinct from the artemisia. 

 in cifing range of Iva axillaris he says "artemisia, pinyon and yellow pine 

 belts.^. Now'the artemisia covers all of them, the yellow pine belt being 

 Merriam's Transition. But Iva axillarfs goes down into the Tropical also. 

 Now take some Gilia localities. Gilia McVickerae is given from the 

 arti'mrsia and pinyon belts, Utah. The facts are that it has never been 

 found""^outside of the type locality at Mar}^svale, Utah, on arid and clayey 

 south slopes of volcanic cliffs, Lower Temperate life zone. Gilia scopu- 

 loruni 'Jones is given as from rocky places of the Covillea belt of southern 

 Utah and Nevada. Its real locality is St. George, Utah, growing at the 

 base of lava flows in the shade. Gilia ochroleuca Jones is given as plains 

 and'hlHsides of the Coviliea belt. The facts are that it grows in loose 

 sand iri the Tropical from the Colorado river westward. He gives Gilia 

 "^^Irtsoni as rocky hillsides and dry canons, when it always grows on 

 tli'ffs, and extends to California. He says of Gilia Nuttalli that it grows 

 fn canyons^ rocky slopes and ridges of the artemisia belt. In fact the 

 plant is always found in coniferous forests of the Middle and Upper 



lemperate in dry places, preferably ridges. Its southernmost limit 

 teiitg 'tiie Charleston mountains, Nevada. 



In his treatment of Dicoria Blake, who does this family for Tide- 

 s*om,^ goes too far in emphasizing the development of the bladdery cov- 

 eM'iig of the seeds, whose development is simply a factor of humidity at 

 file thne of "fruiting. Blake's treatment of the Aplopappus group seems 

 iHine, though he recognizes altogether too many species. 



Taking up Astragalus Tidestrom has made a complete mess of it 

 and"' keeps up most of the forms described as species by anyone. Of 

 these I will not speak now. On page 324 he puts the question mark 

 Tr-fore A: Peabodianus instead of after it. He makes A. eremicus Shel- 

 don a;^' synonym of Fremonti, which it is not. He makes A. latus Jones 

 The srme as araneo^us Sheldon, but that species is a form of palans. 

 He mtikes A. pinonis Jones a form of atratus, but it has no relation to 

 ffiat species. He makes A. eremiticus the same as my arrectus var. 

 fcaplibides, which it is not He makes A. sabulosus the same as A. 

 procerus Gray, but that is a variety of Pattersoni, while sabulosus is a 

 pood species of the Preussii gioup, keeps up my A. Uintensis, when it is 

 t'ie same as A. argophyllus. He makes my A. funereus the same as A. 

 PurshiiVar, tiiictus, a most egregious blunder, for it is closely related to 

 A: cocclneus. He makes A, episcopus the same as A. lancearius and 

 Paibensis, when in fact none of the species are synon}'mous. He makes 

 A.- Cdltoni 'and "its var. MoaBensfs the same, when they are quite different. 

 He could have avoided all these blunders by reference to my monograph, 

 W£iih was-^*yailable: to him aft the time. 



