RYDBERG: Rocky MouNTAIN FLORA 465 
difference is the more distinct toothing of the leaves of the former 
and the tendency of the upper stem-leaves to be narrower and 
more distinctly auriculate-clasping. S. columbianus and S. per- 
plexus are really more closely related to each other than S. dispar 
A. Nels. is to S. perplexus, of which Professor Nelson has made 
it a variety. 
Both Senecio Harbourii Rydb. and S. Howellii Greene have 
been made synonyms of S. canus. Before I published the former 
I visited the Gray Herbarium and had a conference with Dr. 
Greenman. I found that two of the species I had in manuscript 
he also intended to publish, viz., S. Harbourii Rydb. and S. 
multicapitatus Greenm. I published the latter under Greenman’s 
name, and retained my own for the former. S. multicapitatus 
Greenm., Professor Nelson reduces to a synonym of S. Riddellii 
T. & G. I know that at least a few years ago, Dr. Greenman, 
our best student of Senecio, regarded both S. Harbourti and S. 
multicapitatus as good species. In Piper’s Flora of Washington,* 
S. Howellii is kept distinct from S. canus. The manuscript of 
the genus was prepared by the aid of Dr. Greenman. 
Senecio salicinus Rydb., S. canovirens Rydb., and S. lanatifolius 
Osterhout are given as synonyms of S. Fendleri. S. salicinus is 
more closely related to S. rosulatus Rydb. than to S. Fendlert. 
The other two are somewhat related to S. Fendleri but I think 
perfectly distinct, having an altogether different foliage. S. 
lanatifolius has besides discoid heads. 
Regarding Senecio rosulatus Rydb., I may say that when that 
species was proposed we had but one sheet of S. Nelsonii and 
that not a duplicate of the type. This sheet bears two undeveloped 
plants, one of them evidently belonging to the variety uintahensis. 
My conception of S. Nelsonii was therefore rather S. uintahensts 
A. Nels. I am willing therefore to accept S. rosulatus as a syn- 
onym. 
Senecio uintahensis A. Nels. is related to S. multilobatus T. 
& G., as Nelson indicates; but the latter is not a winter annual 
or biennial, but a perennial with a tap-root, just as S. wintahensis 
eh AR main differences are that S. multilobatus is more glabrous, 
*Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 11: 599 
tSee Bull. Torrey Club 27: 170 gaa 172. 
