132 ERYTHEA. 
little shorter than in eastern specimens), that the Arizona 
plants should be called A. fruticosa, rather than A. Cali- 
fornica, which has pods nearly as broad as long, and minutely 
pubescent, the calyx lobes much longer. Pringle’s and 
Smart's plants had been referred to A. Californica, but they 
hardly agree with Nuttall’s description in Torrey and Gray’s 
Flora I. 306 (1838-1840). 
Dr. Palmer’s No. 47 of the year 1875 is the only specimen 
in the National Herbarium tending to show that Amorpha 
fruticosa extends into southern California. The specimen 
was collected at San Diego. This plant, like those from Ari- 
zona, is not Nuttall’s A. Californica but A. fruticosa L., not 
having the petioles “ furnished with minute glandular scales.” 
In Professor HE. L. Greene’s herbarium are two plants of this 
type, both of which are A. fruticosa L. One of them is from 
southern California, the other from New Mexico. 
There seems to have existed a long standing confusion of 
Amorpha fruticosa with A. Californica, in the region of 
Arizona, New Mexico and southern California that must have 
led Professor Greene to describe Nuttall’s true Amorpha 
Californica as a new species, A. hispidula. (See Fl. Fr. 14. 
1891). A. hispidula thus becomes a synonym for A. Cali- 
fornica. Dr. Rothrock’s statement (1. ¢.), that ‘only the 
fruit will determine” whether his plant is A. fruticosa or A. 
Californica, should also be corrected. Nuttall clearly states 
(I. ¢.) that the “ petioles [are] furnished with minute glandu- 
lar scales,” a character by which even specimens without 
flower or fruit can be determined. 
It is thus seen that Amorpha fruticosa extends through 
Arizona, southern California and New Mexico, into Mexico. 
[Mr. Holzinger asks that, in publishing the above, I add any 
notes of my own that may seem to throw light on the subject. 
I therefore remark, first, that I wish the writer had been less 
dogmatical and given us his view of what are the full char- 
acters of A. Californica and A. fruticosa, respectively. He 
should also, in justice to A. hispidula, have stated the char- 
acters on which its author based its title to specific rank. 1 
