38 Muhlenbergia, Volume 4 
FURTHER NOTES REGARDING DICORIA 
By P. BEVERIDGE KENNEDY 
In a recent paper by the writer in the February number of © 
MUHLENBERGIA an error was made in recognizing only two 
previously described species of Dicoria. Index Kewensis and 
Heller’s Catalogue mention only two species. Soon after the 
publication of Dicoria Clarkae my attention was kindly called 
to two more species by Dr. Hall, of the University of California, 
Professor Cockerell of the University of Colorado and Mr. S. B. 
Parish, of San Bernardino. They are D. paniculata and D. 
Wetherillz, and were described by Miss Eastwood in Proc. Cal. 
Acad. II. 6: 298, 299. 1896. D. paniculata is abundantly dis- 
tinct from D. Clarkae, and is well described and figured by 
Miss Eastwood. 
D. Wetherill, however, is. either the same as D. Clarkae 
or a closely related species. Some difficulties present them- 
selves from the fact that D. Wetherilli was described from frag- 
mentary material. In a footnote Miss Eastwood says: “I have 
scraps of what appears to be a fourth species of Dzcorza collected 
by Mr. Alfred Wetherill in the same region, which I name after 
the discoverer.” ‘hen follows the description and another par- 
agraph: ‘While I believe it is a bad plan to describe plants 
from such poor material, yet as the essential features were all 
represented in the scraps, it seemed better to call attention to 
this new member of a genus represented by so few species.” Dr. 
Hall informs me that D. Aanzculata is on the list of types res- 
cued by Miss Eastwood, but D. Wetherilli is not. Fortunately, 
however, the University of California has a small fragment of 
the original scraps. These I have been permitted to examine, 
with the result that I am inclined to believe that D. Wetherill 
and D. Clarkae will prove to be distinct species. Positive as- 
surance of this, however, can not be given until satisfactory ma- 
terial of D. Wetherill: has been collected. 
