the division Eupeucedanum. They (Coulter and Rose) also 

 f trite that our Peucedana are "xerophytic plants of acaulescent 

 habit belonging to the arid regions of western America;' 

 which is only parliallv true. Out of 58 species enumer- 

 ated. 20 do not grow in arid regions at all. Some e:row in 

 meadows and are mesophytic ; some of them are conspicuously 

 caulescent, though the maiority are subacaulescent ; very few 

 are strictly acaulescent. Very few indeed are any more xero- 

 phytic than Erigenia. since most of the species of our Peuce- 

 dana have tuberous roots and develop as I have seen many 

 times when the ground was either flooded with water or so wet 

 ?s to be muddy, and at a time when the relative humidity was 

 almost at saturation. To call such plants xerophytic is a mis- 

 nomer, for plants must be all classed ecologically according to 

 the climate in which they develop, and not according to the 

 climate when they are at 'rest. In their use of the term arid I 

 sssnme that they mean ecologically arid and not geographically 

 arid, for if they mean the latter then their remark has no sig- 

 nificance at all. For to call the upper slopes of our mountains 

 arid where our most gorgeous flora abounds is absurd, though 

 they are surrounded thousands of feet below by arid plains. 

 Their climate closely approaches that of Europe. In examin- 

 ing the various species of Peucedanum which constitute the 

 type of the genus we find that most of them belong to a well- 

 defined group of which P. officinale is a fair representative. 

 This group approaches Sium more closelv than our Peucedana 

 do. even our forms w-hich Coulter and Rose have referred to 

 Cynomarathrum are less related than they. But when we 

 come to other species referred to this genus later than the 

 t!me of Linnaeus there is no doubt that Europe contains some 

 species that are congeneric with ours. P. Alsaticum, for in- 

 stance. There are very few species of our Peucedana that are 

 ?o deficient in wings as the Peucedana of Linnaeus, while the 

 ( 'rnr^enioid forms only approach them in the leaves, but not 

 the habit. On the whole it seems to be well established that 

 our Peucedana are distinct from those of Linneaus, though 

 b"J ^° ^^^ ^°"^^ European Peucedana. They must therefore 

 |pnr a new name, as Lomatium of Rafinesque is untenable, 

 i his name is Cogswellia Spreng (1820). 



Cervana Minunrt Gaertn. Fruct, 1788, was founded on 

 s.trff"T- ?''^^"" ^-^ ^"^ ^« '^''^ ge""« i« referred P. Al- 

 saticum, w^hich seems to be congeneric with ours, but I doubt 



