182 SMITH: STUDIES IN THE GENUS LUPINUS 
type is no. 7609, collected April 7, 1905, near the first crossing of the creek 
west ei Caliente, Kern county, California, growing in sandy soil on steep banks near 
the railroad. It also occurs on the bluffs of Kern River above Bakersfield. 
Heller, writing some five years later (Muhlenbergia 6: 70. 
1910), says: 
It gives me great pleasure to reinstate this long unrecognized species [L. lacteus], 
even at the expense of one of my own names. The species was barely published be- 
fore it was suppressed by Watson in Proc. Am. Acad. 8: 542, November, 1873. He 
there puts it down as a synonym of L. densiflorus, but evidently never saw the plant 
itself, for he nae not mention it in the list of specimens 
mined. During the course of five years he came 
another conclusion, for in the Bibliographical In- 
ce published in 1878, it is said to be the same as L. 
microcarpus, a less satisfactory disposition than the 
first, for it is clearly more related to L. densiflorus 
than it is to the narrow-flowered L. microcar pus. 
pe of L. iene shows a bractlet in the 
sinus Pel the calyx lobes, whereas Kellogg says 
it is not prese 
pO as CALIFORNIA. Kern County: near Ca- 
liente, A. A. Heller 7609 (US, G, NY, 
PA); Bakersfield, 26 Apr—30 May, 1896, 
J. B. Davy 1716 (G). Ventura County: 
Ojai and vicinity, 25 Apr., 1866, S. F. 
Fic. 25. Lupinus DEN- Peckham (US); Ojai Valley, 18 Apr., 1896, © 
weeds ages mage Aa 3 Hubby 34 (UC). Tulare County: 
5301 (US 328676). North Tule River, Nisy, thob. C. A. 
Purpus 1733 (UC); North Tule River, 
May-Oct., 1896, C. A. Purpus 5694 (UC); “Southeastern Cal.”: 
hillsides, Erskin Creek, Apr.Sept., 1897, C. A. Purpus 5301 
(US, G, UC). Riverside County: near San Jacinto, 9 Mar., 
1898, J. B. Leiberg 3134 (US). San Diego County: Coyote Can- 
yon (Colorado Desert), Apr., 1902, H. M. Hall 2853 (UC). 
While not recognizing L. lacteus as of specific rank, I accept it 
as a well-marked variety of L. densiflorus. As to the calyx brac- 
teoles, the discrepancy between Kellogg’s and Heller’s descrip- 
tions is not a critical point, for my studies have shown me that 
these bractlets may or may not be present in different flowers of a 
particular raceme. I find them to be usually absent in the speci- 
mens listed above. The pubescence in this variety is quite var- 
iable, some specimens being nearly smooth. 
