SMITH: STUDIES IN THE GENUS LUPINUS—VII 199 
(now at Cambridge University, England) are not this species. 
Indeed, Dr. Greene, in 1891 (Flora Franciscana 1: 40), expressed 
doubt that our robust, succulent annual is the true L. affinis, 
and I have long felt that Agardh’s description does not satis- 
factorily apply to same. It remained, however, for Miss Alice 
Eastwood to unearth the needed evidence, and her photograph 
of Lindley’s specimen labelled L. succulentus shows said specimen 
to be of this species. Likewise, her photographs of the specimens 
labelled L. affints Agardh show equally well that same should 
not be referred to this robust species, but rather to L. nanus, 
a species which will be treated in a later paper. These are the 
conclusions arrived at by Miss Eastwood with the specimens 
before her. 
Koch knew the species as a garden plant under the name 
L. succulentus and quotes Biedenfeld’s Garten Jahrbuch as, his 
2 Fy: 
Fic. 76. LUuPINUS SUCCULENTUS ayes . C. P. Smith 1406 a 2 
K. Brandegee (UC 81964); 3. E 5 Hees (DS 87569); 4. R. 
Abrams 4224 (DS); 5. K. pa “(UC 187796). 
only authority for attributing the name to Douglas. He also 
states that the same species was distributed from Darmstadt 
as L. Liebmanni and from Geneva as L. purpureus Del. Con- 
sidering the species to be undescribed, he drew up in 1861 a 
description in German, accréditing the species to Douglas and 
suggesting that its native home must be assumed to be California 
or Oregon. As his description is not readily available in this 
ee it is reproduced here: 
ze, mehr neidrig bleibende Pflanze ist mit Ausnahme der 
Obuedsebs der Blatter sehr fein behaart; 9 langlichkeilférmige Blattchen 
mit zuriickgebogener Spitze; Nebenblattchen wenig angewachsen, borsten- 
