334 RYDBERG: Rocky MOUNTAIN FLORA 
CHAENACTIS 
Chaenactis achilleaefolia H. & A. and C. pedicularta Greene are 
both reduced in the New Manual, the former to a variety of C. 
Douglasti, the latter toa synonym of C. alpina. 1 think that both 
should be kept up as species. The characters separating the former 
from C. Douglasii are not so much the dwarf habit and reduced 
crowded segments of the leaves, for such conditions are found in the 
true C. Douglasii,as the permanent tomentum and the longer and 
acute pappus-scales. C. alpina is subscapose with peduncles 2-7 
cm. long and its involucre is much shorter than the corollas. C. 
pedicularia has leafy although short stems, very short peduncles 
1-2 cm. long, and involucral bracts, in the specimens seen, fully as 
long as the flowers. Apparently C. pedicularia is the same as C. 
Douglasii, var. montana M. E. Jones,* of which the author states 
that it has been confused with C. alpina, but at the same time 
points out several distinctions. 
CHAMAECHAENACTIS 
In reviewing Coulter & Nelson’s New Manual, Dr. B. L. Robin- 
son stated: ‘‘No mention, for instance, is made of Encelia nutans 
Eastwood and Chaenactis scaposa Eastwood.” This is not exactly 
true, for the latter is included in the New Manual. It was not 
strange, however, that Dr. Robinson should overlook the fact, 
for who would expect to find it under the name Actinella carnosa 
A. Nels.? I doubt if Professor Nelson has seen any specimens, for 
if he had I do not think he would have transferred it to Actinella. 
The description in the New Manual is a verbatim copy of Miss 
Eastwood's description. The plant is evidently more closely re- 
lated to Chaenactis, in which genus it was first placed, than to 
Actinella. If Professor Nelson was unwilling to adopt my generic 
name Chamaechaenactis, it would have been much better to re- 
tain the species in Chaenactis than to transfer it to Actinella, where 
it is wholly out of place. Besides, Chamaechaenactis is fully as 
good as Nelson’s own genera Tonestus and Wyomingia, and far 
more so than Nacrea and Enomegra.. The last has no scientific 
standing at all, being distinguished from Argemone only by the 
* Proc. California Acad. Sci. II. 5: zoo. 1895. 
tRhodora 12: 16, 1910. 
