SEGREGATES OF CALTHA LEPTOSEPALA. 75 
there was no sinus at all but a closed one! The apology is 
a lame one, indeed; for, if Dr. Huth and I could see that 
the broad sinus was artificially or accidentally made in the 
process of drying, why should not such keen eyes as were 
those of De Candolle have detected this? Nevertheless, 
upon no other supposition can this Alaskan plant of mine 
be accepted as representing C. biflora; and so I assign the 
name with a mark of doubt. At same time, if this be not 
that species, then none of our white-flowered Calthas can be. 
And I here offer willingly a suggestion that has lately 
been made to me in a letter, by the most experienced of all 
botanists in the flora of far-northern and northwestern Amer- 
iea, Mr. John Macoun. "This friend has failed to find any 
plant in any of his many expeditions to the Northwest, or 
in any of the numerous collections made there by others, 
which he can confidently receive as answering to the de- 
scription of C. biflora in the important points of the foliage. 
But he finds plants of tke yellow-flowered C. palustris group 
which are not only strictly two-flowered, but which have 
precisely the foliage, basal and eauline, ascribed to C. biflora. 
Now against the accepting of this view, that C. biflora is 
a simple-stemmed two-flowered yellow Caltha with reniform 
leaves showing a broad open sinus—as seen in many sub- 
arctic specimens—against this lies the fact all the yellow- 
flowered plants have five obovate sepals instead of the ten 
oblong ones which are, by distinct implication, attributed 
to C. biflora. 
Otherwise, it must still be admitted that, in the absence 
of any white-flowered Caltha answering the requirements of 
C. biflora as to foliage, Mr. Macoun's suggestion is a valuable 
one. But the Alaskan plant here somewhat hypothetically 
taken for real C. biflora Mr. Macoun has not seen. 
C. MALVACEA. C. biflora, Torr. Bot., Wilkes Exp. 215, not 
of DC. nor Hook. Habit, stem and geminate peduncles as 
1 HELIOS, ix, 68. 
