108 Muhlenbergia, Volume 4 
THE COLORADO CONIOSELINUM 
By GEORGE E. OSTERHOUT 
In the “Revision of North American Umbelliferae” of 1888, 
Drs. Coulter and Rose accepted Ligzsticum scopulorum Gray, 
and placed our Rocky mountain Conzoselinum with Conzose- 
Linum canadense 'T. & G. However, when they published their 
“Monograph of the North American Umbelliferae” iu 1goo0, they 
had reached the conclusion that Dr. Gray’s Ligustecum scopu- 
lorum was a Contoselinum, and therefore it became Conzoselinum 
scopulorum (Gray) C. & R., and for a Ligusticum of the Rocky 
mountains somewhat similar in appearance they gave a new 
name, Lzgusticum stmulans. We may of course expect that the 
last conclusion was carefully reached after the examination of 
specimens, and accept it as correct, but their description of Zz- 
gusticum stmulans is not a very good one in that it does not 
mention the oil tubes of the carpels. And their description of 
the fruit of Conzoselinum scopulorum does not fit that of the 
Contoselinum of Colorado, though they cite numerous Colorado 
specimens. Their description is: “fruit obout 61mm. long; oil 
tubes usually one in the dorsal intervals and 2 in the lateral, 2 
to 4 on the commisural side.” 
I do not think there is more than one Cozzoselinum in the 
Colorado Rocky mountains. I have collected good fruiting 
specimens of it in several localities, and the fruit of none of them 
corresponds with the description which I have quoted. The 
fruit is somewhat variable because the carpels vary in the elose- 
ness of the dorsal wings, and the oil tubes vary accordingly; but 
in all the specimens there were more oil tubes than stated in the 
description. In the intervals there were 2 to 5, and on the coin- 
missure there were 6 to 8. Two figures here given will repre- 
sent fairly well the fruit of Conzoselinum scopulorum (Gray) 
C. & R. according to the Colorado specimens. 
