301 
Untrep States. Montana: Old Hollowtop, near Pony, 
8000 ft., Rydberg & Bessey 4652. Washington: near the 
confluence of the Columbia,-on the north towards Puget Sound, 
rare, Douglas ; Cascade Mtns., common shrub by banks of 
streams and amongst woods up to 6500 ft., Lyall. Oregon: 
bogs and stream banks of the Wallowa Mtns., Cusick 2313; 
Coast Range and Willamette valley, Moseley. Wyoming : Spring 
Creek, Nelson 6291. California: Sierra Nevada, 5000 ft., 
Lobb 317; Silua Mtn. Pass, Hooker & Gray ; meadows near Black 
Mountain, Fresno County, 9500 ft., Hall & Chandler 597. Long 
Meadow, Tulare County, 8000-9000 ft., Palmer 200; Scotts Mtn., 
6000 ft., Hngelmann & Sargent; near Mineral King, Sierra 
Nevada, Coville & Funston 1556. 
XXX.—-ORTHACHNE AND STREPTACHNE. 
D. K. Huaues. 
The first description of Orthachne (spalm. Ortachne) was 
published i in Steudel’s Synopsis Plantarum Graminearum p. 121 
early in 1854* with O. retorta Nees ms. as the only species. Soon 
after that, either in 1854 or early in 1855,+ Nees in Seemann’s 
Botany of the Voyage of H.M.S. “ Herald’ (p. 225) mentioned 
the genus again, without describing it or referring to Steudel’s 
Synopsis; but this time the species given is O. pilosa, a new 
combination for Streptachne pilosa H.B. & K. It is evident that 
both for reasons of priority and because it is accompanied by a 
generic description, Orthachne retorta Nees ex Steudel has to be 
regarded as the type of the genus. This O. retorta was based by 
Nees on a specimen labelled ‘‘ Henslow legit ad Prom. tres montes.”’ 
The specimen was, however, without doubt collected by Darwin 
and given to Henslow, and in the Herbarium at Kew there is 
actually a specimen collected by Darwin and written up by him 
*C. Tres Montes.”’ It agrees in all respects with Nees’s descrip- 
tion of Orthachne retorta ; but it is at the same time the original 
of Muehlenbergia rariflora Hook. f. (Fl. Antarct. 371, t. 131; 1847). 
Bentham, in Journ. Linn. Soc. xix. 81, commenting on Hooker’ s 
species moved it from M uehlenbergia to Stipa. It is, however, 
not a true Stipa, for the fertile floret is not crustaceous but is of 
the same texture as the empty glumes; the awn is only slightly 
twisted and has no distinct differentiation into column and bristle, 
and there are only two lodicules. It is also very different from 
any species at present included in Muehlenbergia, especially in 
the dwarf habit and the hard convolute leaves, the very scanty 
panicle which is about two inches long and in the very coarse 
awas. 
* See review in wise xxxvii. 125; Febr. 1854. 
+ See reviews—part v. (pp. 161-200) eae Gard. Chron. July 29, 1854, 
p. 487; part vi (pp. 201-253) in Am. . Sci., May 1855, p. 439; 
—vi in Trans. Linn. Soc. xxi, 342 ewe and mentioned as published 
parts i 
** London 1852-4.”’ 
