RYDBERG: Rocky MouNTAIN FLORA S17 
vetensis Rydb., are made synonyms of EF. radicatus. EE. vetensis 
has an involucre of two series of subequal bracts, a simple pappus, 
consisting of bristles only, of which some are occasionally shorter. 
Both FE. Parryi and E. Scribneri have 3 or 4 series of bracts, more 
imbricated and more flat, obovate-cuneate achenes and double 
pappus, the outer squamellate. Both are closely related to E. 
montanensis, which Nelson refers to Wyomingia. 
ERIGERON YELLOWSTONENSIS A. Nels. Bot. Gaz. 31: 198. 1900 
Erigeron lapiluteus’ A. Nels.; Coult. & Nels. New Man. Cent. 
Rocky Mts. 530. 1909. 
Professor Nelson states in the New Manual that Evigeron yellow- 
stonensis is a name to be rejected, but he does not state on what 
ground, probably because it is of barbaric origin, regarded froma 
Latin standpoint. But what should be said about £. lapiluteus 
which is to replace it? Is it Latin? It is probably meant to be 
derived from /apis, stone, and luteus, yellow. In making a com- 
pound word the Romans usually took the stem of the first word 
and connected it with the second word by means of the connecting 
vowel i. The stem of lapis is lapid, as seen from the genitive 
lapidis. The proper form would then have been /apidiluteus. 
But what would that have meant? Usually the Romans placed 
the modifying word first (not always though), as is done in the 
English, and the name Erigeron lapidiluteus would mean the 
“‘stone-yellow fleabane.”” The intention was evidently to name 
it the ‘‘fleabane of the yellow stone.”” The only proper way to 
express this would be by the specific name Japidis lutet or, as it 
has become the custom in botany to capitalize proper names, and 
use a hyphen when the specific name consists of more than one 
word, Lapidis-lutei or Lutei-lapidis, as the order of the adjective 
is indifferent. 
Professor Nelson states also that ‘‘the variety droebachensis [of 
E. acris] probably does not occur in our range.’’ Erigeron droe- 
bachensis Muell., is as common in the Rockies as is E. yellowston- 
ensis. The question is whether they should be kept apart speci- 
fically. The only difference I can find is that the latter is more 
hairy with shorter hairs, decidedly glandular-puberulent in the 
inflorescence, and the involucre is more decidedly hirsute. In the 
