RYDBERG: Rocky MOouNTAIN FLORA 449 
familien, 7. e., including Adenophyllum, Hymenatherum, Aci- 
phyllaea, Thymophylla, and Lowellia. If so, the name Dysodia 
papposa (Vent.) Hitch. and D. aurea (A. Gray) A. Nels. can be 
used; but if these genera are to be regarded as distinct or if they 
are limited as by Gray and by Hemsley, the names are not the 
correct ones. The monotype of Dyssodia Cav. (originally spelled 
with two s’s), is D. Porophyllum = Adenophyllum Hemsl., which 
is not congeneric with either of these species according to Hemsley. 
The only available generic names for the two species of the Rocky 
Mountain region would be Boebera Willd. and Lowellia A. Gray, 
respectively. 
ARTEMISIA 
The treatment of Artemisia in the New Manual of the Central 
Rocky Mountains is very unsatisfactory. The author has kept 
up five of his own species and reduced every species proposed by 
any one else since 1884 and some before that year, either to syn- 
onymy or else to a variety of some older species, except Artemisia 
saxicola Rydb., which was a substitute for the North American 
so-called A. norvegica. Now let us see what the facts really are. 
There are only two species of Professor Nelson’s that I am in- 
clined to uphold, viz., Artemisia aromatica and A. nova. In such 
a ‘‘conservative’’ work as the New Manual generally is, even 
these ought to have been reduced to varieties. 
It is questionable if Artemisia aromatica A. Nels. can be kept 
specifically distinct from A. dracunculoides. The latter is fully 
as common in the Rockies as is A. aromatica, and even one speci- 
men distributed from the University of Wyoming and named 
A. aromatica, viz., Goodding 602, is typical A. dracunculoides. 
Also an older specimen, Nelson 2469, belongs here. 
Artemisia nova A. Nels. was not altogether new when it was 
described. In fact, several specimens were found in herbaria 
before that time under the name Artemisia arbuscula. If I am 
not mistaken, it constituted a part of Nuttall’s original A. ar- 
buscula, although the description fits better the other part, which 
therefore may be regarded as the type. Dr. Gray* states: “Two 
forms, passing into each other (both collected by Nuttall, * * *); 
one with involucres more campanulate, 7-9-flowered; in the other 
oblong and only 4-5-flowered.”” The latter is A. mova A. Nels. 
*Syn. Fl. 1°: 374. 
