294 



[Vol. 9 

 GARDEN 



spatulate, 2-3 mm. longer than the sepals; filaments linear, about 

 4 mm. long, anthers about 2 mm. long: inflorescence lax, race- 

 mose; pedicels stout, recurved, 1-3 mm. long: pods deflexed, 

 terete, glabrous or short-pubescent, 2-4.5 cm. long, sessile ; style 

 1-2 mm. long, stigma small, shortly 2-lobed: cotyledons oblique 

 with respect to the radicle in the seed. 



Distribution: southern Nevada, western Arizona, and south- 

 ern California. Type: Cooper from "near Ft. Mojave," Cali- 

 fornia. 



Specimens examined: 



Arizona: Chloride, April 15, 1903, Jones (Mo. Bot. Gard. 



Herb.). 



Nevada: Muddy Range, April 10, 1905, Goodding 2226 (Rky. 



Mt. Herb.). 



California: Shepherd's Canyon, May 1, 1897, Jones (Mo. Bot. 

 Gard. Herb.) ; near Laws, Inyo County, May 5, 1906, Heller 8184 

 (Mo. Bot. Gard. Herb.); Nelson Range, near Lee Well, Inyo 

 County, May 23, 1906, Hall & Chandler 7131 (Univ. Calif. 

 Herb.) ; Pleasant Canyon, Panamint Mountains, May 10, 1906, 

 Hall & Chandler 69^2 (Univ. Calif. Herb.) ; Randsburg, Kern 

 County, April 14, 1905, Heller 7680 (Mo. Bot. Gard. Herb.); 

 San Felipe, San Diego County, April 16, 1895, Brandegee (Univ. 

 Calif. Herb.) ; Cottonwood Mountains, Colorado Desert, May 

 11, 1905, Hall 6023 (Univ. Calif. Herb.) ; Colorado Desert, April, 

 1905, Brandegee (Univ. Calif. Herb.) ; southwestern part of Colo- 

 rado Desert, April, 1887, Orcutt (Mo. Bot. Gard. Herb.). 



When Dr. Greene placed this species in his genus Guillenia he 

 recognized its affinity to C. lasiophyllus and its allies. He did, 

 however, suggest that it might be a generic monotype. Consid- 

 ering Greene's concept of the limited amount of divergence to be 

 allowed within a genus, his suggestion seems quite pertinent and 

 quite in accord with the present author's views. C. Cooperi is 

 somewhat intermediate between the lasiophyllus group (Guil- 

 lenia) and the Coulteri group. Were each group thought worthy 

 of generic; rank then C. Cooperi would become, perhaps, a mono- 

 typic genus connecting them. To the author's mind the existence 

 of this intermediate species argues against such a possible generic 

 segregation. 



Thcly podium deserti Jones (Contr. to Western Botany 12: 

 1. 1908) is unknown to the author, but to judge from the de- 

 scription is apparently to be associated with C. Cooperi. That it 

 is not specifically identical with it there seems no doubt. This 



