468 RypBERG: STUDIES ON THE RocKy MOUNTAIN FLORA 
variabilis Brand are one and the same species. I included Hall & 
Harbour 454 in the original description of P. collina, and I have no 
reason for changing my opinion. There is no essential difference 
between my diagnosis of P. collina and Brand’s characterization of 
P. variabilis, except that I described the leaves as “‘ oblong or ovate” 
and Brand gives them as “‘linear.”” The specimens in the Colum- 
bia University herbarium of Hall & Harbour 454 have oblong leaves, 
hence agreeing better with my description. Furthermore, P. 
alyssoides (= P. collina), as I understand it, has been collected at 
several places in both Utah and Wyoming, and why not also in 
Colorado? Professor A. Nelson in Coulter & Nelson’s New Manual 
has followed Dr. Brand’s treatment of this group very closely. It 
would have been much better for him to find out the real facts. 
Brand’s description of P. Douglasiz is not correct; he describes 
the calyx as eglandulose-pilose, while the duplicate of the type in 
the Columbia University herbarium is densely glandular. | 
Phlox dasyphyila Brand is not better than P. variabilis, being 
only a small-flowered and narrow-leaved form of P. multiflora, 
not uncommon in Colorado and Wyoming. 
Phlox densa Brand is a low condensed from of P. ausiro- 
montana, more like the type than Phlox austromontana prostrata 
E, Nels., which Dr. Brand regards as a mere variety. . The only 
one of Dr. Brand’s new species from the Rockies that I regard as 
good is P. glabrata (E. Nels.) Brand (P. Hoodii glabrata E. Nels.). 
In describing Phlox aculeata* Prof. A. Nelson compares it with 
the P. caespitosa group. The intercostal portion of the calyx is 
replicate, however, which would associate it with P. Stansburyt. 
I can not distinguish it from P. viridis E. Nels. 
Dr. Brand’s conception of Gilia congesta Hooker is entirely 
wrong. He regards G. iberidifolia Benth. as the typical G. con- 
gesta. A duplicate of Douglas’s plant is found in the Columbia 
University herbarium, and a closer study of the same shows that 
it is the same as Jenney’s plant from the Black Hills, which con- 
stituted a part of G. spicata capitata A. Gray, and my number 886, 
also from the Black Hills. These two specimens I included in my 
G. cephaloidea. Unfortunately I did not designate a type and 
some botanists might claim that Jenney’s plant which was first 
* Bot. Gaz. §2: 270. IQII. 
