RYDBERG: STUDIES ON THE RocKy MOUNTAIN FLORA 109 
also A. porrifolia in the branched inflorescence but has shorter 
pedicels and broader leaves. A. vaginata grew in loose rich soil 
under overhanging canyon walls. 
Utau: Armstrong Canyon, near the Natural Bridges, August 
4-6, 1911, Rydberg & Garrett 9407 (type in herb. N. Y. Bot. Gard.). 
Professor Nelson gives Zygadenus gramineus Rydb. as a 
synonym of Z. venenosus S. Wats. It is evidently Z. gramineus 
he described, although: some modification was made. Z. vene- 
nosus is not found in Wyoming, the most eastern stations known 
are in the Snake River Valley of western Idaho. It is charac- 
terized by the long-clawed petals and sepals and the thick gland. 
Professor Piper, some years ago, criticized me for redescribing Z. 
venenosus. I think he referred to Z. intermedius Rydb. After some 
arguments on both sides he said that he would look up Watson’s 
type. I do not know that he did, but evidently he came to the 
same conclusion as I, for in his Flora of Washington* he limited 
the range of Z. venenosus to “British Columbia to California” 
and hence excluded the Rockies. I have also been criticized 
for the same thing by Mr. M. E. Jones. Mr. Jones} remarked: 
“Part of his type of Zygadenus intermedius is my No. 2091 from 
Farmington, Utah. These specimens have no distinct sheath 
to any of the leaves, except the basal ones. . . . This is a fair 
sample of Rydberg’s accuracy in dealing with Zygadenus. .. .” 
Turning to my original paper, t one may see that J. H. Sandberg 
10564 is expressly designated as the type and not Jones 2091, 
which I included in the species. I do not know what Mr. Jones’ 
Own specimens show, but there are two of Jones’ specimens from 
Farmington distributed under the number 2091 in the Columbia 
University herbarium and in these even the upper leaves show 
short sheaths. One leaf attached near the middle of the stem 
shows a sheath 1.5 cm. long. I do not think that the presence 
or absence of a sheath on the upper part is a specific character, 
but this as well as the citing of a wrong type shows that Mr. Jones 
1S not more accurate than I am. 
__For my part, I think that Z. gramineus can not be upheld as a 
* Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 11: 198. 1906. 
t Contr. West. Bot. 12: 77. 26 Mr 1908. 
t Bull. Torrey Club 27: 536. 1900. 
