170 SMITH: STUDIES IN THE GENUS LUPINUS 
of San Francisco, a man of extended field observations with a keen 
appreciation for plant differences. In his comments upon the 
plant named by him as L. lacteus (Proce. Cal. Acad. Sci. 5: 38. 
1873), he says: 
Admitting L. densiflorus to be the same as L. gems with variations, it 
would then bring us toa “* dense subsessile spike’ . ith which to contend. 
If these and many more varieties prove ie ately to run into one, it is not our ‘aie. 
as the literature now stands, we are obliged, in self-defence, to set it apart, when 
called upon for determinations. 
Agardh’s descriptions are certainly more comprehensive than 
Bentham’s, but the evidence is clear that the specimens selected 
by him for his description of L. densiflorus were not typical of the 
species as known to Bentham. The latter’s statement, however, 
that L. Menziesti of Torrey & Gray is the same as his L. densiflorus 
may be worthy of some careful weighing. I agree with both 
Torrey and Watson that these two names do not represent two 
separate species; but Torrey’s statement in respect to the “‘ yellow 
corollas’’ in L. Menziesii is evidently erroneous, as attested by 
many herbarium specimens and by my own and others’ field ob- 
servations. I also appreciate Kellogg’s observation that ‘these 
and many more varieties’’ exist, and feel, as he felt, the need of a 
classification for their naming. 
Very little can be gleaned from the published records of 
Douglas’s sojourn in California. In his letter dated “ Nov. 23rd 
1831,’’ written from ‘‘ Monterey, Upper California” and published 
by Dr. Hooker (Comp. Bot. Mag. 2:149. 1836), he states that he 
arrived at way opiate’ on iassscieicvesoe 22, 1830. About the end of 
April, after vari of Monterey, he ‘ undertook 
a journey southward, and reached Sisk Barbara, 34° 25’, in the 
middle of May ... and returned late in June, by the same 
route. . . . Shortly afterwards [he] started for San Francisco, 
and proceeded to the North of that port.”’ His “last observation 
was at 30° 45’; therefore in what is now Sonoma County, or 
possibly, but not probably, in Solano or Yolo County. 
Study of the collectors’ data with the numerous specimens 
examined by me while preparing this paper permits of some specu- 
lations that may be worthy of attention. One might thus con- 
clude that Douglas’s specimens were secured before leaving 
