69 
| ; LUPINUS. 
Inte o recent numters of Muhlenbergia Mr. Heller begins fis 
onslaught on this inoffensive gents. in his characteristic Hellerian 
way by trying to name. everything in sight, apparently following 
He takes up characters long proven fallacious and uses them as 
specific ones such as size and color of flower, length of peduncle, 
variation in depth of sinus in calyx, variability in shape of bracts, 
shape of banner, etc. One would suppose that a person having 
| spent even one season in the arid region would know that the de- 
velopment of flowers and peduncles is governed by the humidity 
and sunshine during the period of blooming, and that dry seasons 
make material differences from wet seasons. But all these things 
go for naught with Mr. Heller... Even plants from the same seed 
growing together are different species to him, if one has a slight 
Variation from the other. Lupinus brevicaulis is the chief center 
of his attack this time, though he also “ors 1 Hittle with L. male 
SIE AE TT 
for such crude work. 
| Pentstemoen Eatoni var undosus Jones. 1895. 
P. coccinatus. Rydberg, Dec. 1909. 
The writer fails to see how Mr. Ry 
of deliberate and intentional injustice and botanical 
lishing. his species as he quotes my variety as a $ 
dberg can escape the guilt 
piracy in pub- 
ynonym of his 
d not preoccu- 
| died. Heretofore he has been a great s 
made many changes of specific names 
ties antedating them. For twenty-five years it has been the ios 
in America to adopt varietal names when raised to specific rank. 
_It would take a Philadelphia lawyer to keep track of the soeeme? 
copic changes of front of certain botanists on nomenclature. 
SO SR RNS ee SE hee 
