100 RypBERG: STUDIES ON THE ROCKY MOouNTAIN FLORA 
himself the leaves are both 2- and 3-ranked on different twigs of 
the same branch. The seeds in J. wtahensis are either obtuse or 
acutish at the apex, and these characters do not furnish any dis- 
tinction. Ihave spoken to Dr. J. A. Shafer, who helped Dr. N. L. 
Britton in preparing North American Trees, and he told me that 
he had come to exactly the same conclusion as I. __ 
The following two changes in the nomenclature seem to be 
advisable. 
/ Hesperopeuce Mertensiana (Bong.) Rydb. comb. nov. 
Pinus Mertensiana Bong. Mem. Acad. Sci. Nat. St. Petersb. VI. 
2: 163... 3832: 
Abies Mertensiana Lindl. & Gord. Journ. Hort. Soc. Lond. 5: 211. 
1850. 
Abies Pattoniana Jeffrey; A. Murray, Rep. Oregon Exped.1. 1853- 
Tsuga Pattoniana Sénéc. Conif. 21. 1867. 
Hesperopeuce Pattoniana Lemmon, Rep. Calif. State Board 
Forestry 3: 126. 1890. 
Tsuga Mertensiana Sargent, Silva 12: 77. 1898. Not T. Merten- 
siana Carriére, 1867. 
I agree fully with Mr. Lemmon that this species should be 
removed from Tsuga. Both its cones and its leaves are more like 
those of a spruce than those of a hemlock, and the habit of the 
tree is different from both. Mr. Lemmon, however, did not adopt 
the oldest available specific name. 
‘ Sabina horizontalis (Moench) Rydb. comb. nov. 
Juniperus horizontalis Moench, Meth. 699. 1794. 
Juniperus prostrata Pers. Syn. 2: 632. 1807. 
Juniperus Sabina procumbens Pursh, Fl. Am. Sept. 647. 1814. 
_ Sabina prostrata Antoine; Cupress. Gatt. 57. 1857-70. 
EPHEDRACEAE 
Marcus E. Jones* reduced Ephedra viridis Coville to a variety 
of E. nevadensis. I do not know exactly what E. viridis is, as I 
have not seen the type, but the Utah plant which Jones had in 
mind, does not seem to agree with the description. We have dupli- 
cates of some of the numbers cited by Jones, and these seem to be 
typical E. nevadensis. 
Se coe 
* Proc. Calif. Acad. II. 5: 726. 1895. 
