﻿Smith: 
  Studies 
  in 
  the 
  genus 
  Lupinus 
  491 
  

  

  (G, 
  NY, 
  UC) 
  ; 
  San 
  Luis 
  Obispo, 
  spring, 
  1905, 
  /. 
  E. 
  Roadhouse 
  34 
  

   (UC). 
  Santa 
  Barbara 
  County: 
  Cuyama 
  River, 
  May, 
  1896, 
  

   A. 
  Eastwood 
  (G) 
  ; 
  San 
  Rafael 
  Mountains, 
  June, 
  1887, 
  //. 
  C. 
  Ford 
  

   (G); 
  Santa 
  Barbara, 
  March, 
  1861, 
  W. 
  H. 
  Brewer 
  316, 
  340 
  

   (G, 
  US); 
  Santa 
  Cruz 
  Island, 
  April, 
  1888, 
  T. 
  S. 
  Brandegee 
  (UC); 
  

   Santa 
  Inez 
  Mountains, 
  March, 
  1828 
  (UC). 
  Santa 
  Cruz 
  County: 
  

   near 
  Santa 
  Cruz, 
  C. 
  L. 
  Anderson 
  (UC). 
  County 
  not 
  given: 
  

   Santa 
  Ana 
  River, 
  April, 
  1880, 
  Parish 
  Brothers 
  (B) 
  ; 
  1876, 
  C. 
  C. 
  

   Parry 
  & 
  J. 
  G. 
  Lemmon 
  63 
  (G, 
  T); 
  Dr. 
  Coiilier 
  373 
  (T); 
  April, 
  

   1884, 
  Mrs. 
  R. 
  W. 
  Summers 
  (US). 
  

  

  Lower 
  California. 
  Cariso 
  Creek, 
  April, 
  1893, 
  T. 
  S. 
  Brande- 
  

   gee 
  (UC); 
  Guadalupe 
  Mountains, 
  May, 
  1883, 
  C. 
  R. 
  Orcutt 
  880 
  

   (NY); 
  Laguna 
  to 
  Tia 
  Juana 
  River, 
  June, 
  1894, 
  E. 
  A. 
  Mearns, 
  

   International 
  Boundary 
  Commission 
  3505 
  (NY) 
  ; 
  San 
  Telmo, 
  April, 
  

   1886, 
  C. 
  R.Orcutt 
  (UC), 
  

  

  F 
  

  

  2a. 
  Lupinus 
  sparsiflorus 
  Bent. 
  PL 
  Hartw. 
  303. 
  1848. 
  [Fig. 
  

   54.] 
  

  

  Lupinus 
  siibhirsutits 
  Davidson, 
  Proc. 
  So. 
  Calif. 
  Acad. 
  Sci. 
  18: 
  

  

  80. 
  1919. 
  

  

  This 
  is 
  a 
  composite 
  species 
  exhibiting 
  several 
  pronounced 
  

   variations, 
  which, 
  in 
  their 
  extremes, 
  readily 
  lend 
  themselves 
  to 
  a 
  

   scheme 
  of 
  classification. 
  Numerous 
  intermediates 
  occur, 
  however, 
  

   and 
  comparative 
  study 
  shows 
  the 
  advisibility 
  of 
  recognizing 
  a 
  

   series 
  of 
  varieties 
  here, 
  rather 
  than 
  several 
  new 
  species 
  not 
  at 
  all 
  

   equal 
  in 
  rank 
  to 
  L. 
  Mr 
  s 
  litis 
  simus, 
  L. 
  Benthami, 
  L. 
  truncatus., 
  etc. 
  

  

  From 
  Bentham*s 
  description 
  I 
  cyiote 
  the 
  following: 
  

  

  Pili 
  patentes 
  cum 
  aliis 
  appressis 
  mixta 
  . 
  . 
  . 
  Flores 
  iis 
  L. 
  nani 
  subsimilis, 
  omnes 
  

   alterni 
  v. 
  rarius 
  hinc 
  inde 
  approximati. 
  

  

  J 
  

  

  My 
  conception 
  of 
  the 
  species, 
  both 
  sensu 
  lato 
  and 
  sensu 
  

   stricto, 
  is 
  indicated 
  by 
  the 
  following 
  diagnosis, 
  the 
  italics 
  emphasiz- 
  

   ing 
  the 
  characters 
  not 
  shared 
  by 
  the 
  typical 
  form. 
  

  

  Stems 
  slender 
  or 
  stouter 
  and 
  more 
  or 
  less 
  fistulous, 
  usually 
  

   branched, 
  appressed-pubescent 
  and 
  usually 
  more 
  or 
  less 
  villous, 
  

   the 
  spreading 
  hairs 
  some 
  1-2 
  mm. 
  long, 
  either 
  soft 
  or 
  quite 
  stiff; 
  

   leaflets 
  five 
  to 
  nine, 
  linear, 
  oblanceolate, 
  cuneate, 
  cuncate-oblong, 
  

   or 
  elliptic, 
  angled, 
  truncate, 
  or 
  notched 
  at 
  the 
  apex, 
  somewhat 
  

   hairy 
  or 
  almost 
  glabrous 
  above, 
  usually 
  villous 
  below, 
  petioles 
  

   terete: 
  flowers 
  8-13 
  mm. 
  long, 
  promptly 
  and 
  conspicuously 
  be- 
  

  

  