﻿Coult. and Fisher, Bot. Gaz. 18, 300. Greene's name 

 seems to be the older, and though the description is so 

 meager that no one can tell what it belongs to. yet from 

 the locality it is quite liable to belong to //. boreale. At 

 any rate, H.jlavescens is manifestly a form of H. boreale. 

 Prof. Kelsey thinks this is more than an albino form, and 

 so it seems to be. N. L. Britton, in the " Check List/' 

 considers //. boreale and Maekenzii as forms of the same 

 species, but I certainly would not so consider them. H. 

 boreale is separable from the other by the areolae of the 

 pods, being nearly as wide as long, by the calyx teeth very 

 short and triangular, and by the short banner; in //. 

 Maekenzii. the calyx teeth are long, the areola? linear or 

 nearly so, and the banner as long as the keel; there is 

 some variation in the characters, but I have never seen 

 specimens which could not at once be separated by the 

 areola? of the pods. The sporadic appearance of H. 

 boreale in the southern part of its range is in favor of its 

 identity with //. Maekenzii, but until its characters fail I 

 see no" way but to keep it up. The eastern forms of //. 

 Maekenzii have smaller flowers and long filiform calyx 

 teeth, so far as I have seen them.. 

 Lathyrus Utahensis. 



No. 5441I. June 15, 1894, Ireland's Ranch, Utah, at 

 the head of Salina Canon, in gravel, at 8000 alt. 



This is the plant referred to. L. pa luster var. myrti folia >. 

 by Watson in King's Report and is Watson's No. 296. 

 Whatever may be done with the apparently interminable 

 forms of this genus in the Sierras and northward this 

 species seems to be sufficiently distinct from them all to 

 warrant recognition. Leaflets oval, 2' long, obtuse at 

 both ends and apiculate above, 4-6 pairs; stipules large 

 and leafy, reniform and variously cut, 6" high or less and 

 nearly 2' wide: peduncles 4-8' long, usually about as 



