476 RYDBERG: STUDIES ON THE Rocky MOUNTAIN FLORA 
linearis subulata. Dr. Brand did not give any reason for this 
change. Furthermore, he did not cite any specimens of his C. 
tinctoria from California and I have seen no specimens of C. 
aristella from that state. Of the variety subulata, on the contrary, 
there are several collections from California in our herbaria. 
There is nothing either in Kellogg’s description or in his figure 
which would indicate that Dr. Gray had made a misinterpretation. 
Kellogg’s figure is drawn from a young, simple, undeveloped 
plant, and the peculiar branching of the var. subulata in age does 
not show. Whether C. tinctoria and C. aristella should be united 
into one species is another question, but in such a case the variety 
subulata should have been made the species, viz., C. tinctoria 
Kellogg, and C. aristella a variety thereof; and this for the follow- 
ing reason: The variety subulata is certainly found in the type 
region of Collomia tinctoria, while C. aristella apparently is not. 
Seen from another standpoint, the local and more specialized C. 
aristella must be regarded as the derivative of the more common 
and less specialized C. tinctoria (i. e., the var. subulata). 
Brand transferred Gilia sinister M. E. Jones to Collomia 
without having seen the plant. This was probably because Mr. 
Jones placed it in the Collomia section and compared it with G. 
aristella. But Jones also made the following statement: ‘This has 
the general appearance of G. inconspicua, but without the basal 
leaves.’’ The relationship is also with G. inconspicua. Several 
of the species of that group have the calyx enlarged somewhat in 
fruit; this is true in G. sinister, but it is at last ruptured by the 
capsule and does not have the structure of the calyx in Collomia. 
It is in my opinion a true Gilia. 
Dr. Brand included a number of forms, in my judgment several 
good species, under Polemonium pulcherrimum Hook. He divides 
it in three subspecies, tricolor, delicatum, and parvifolium. The 
first is separated by its tricolored flowers and equals P. tricolor 
Eastw. The other two subspecies he separated only by the length 
of the leaflets, a very poor character to use for separating sub- 
species.* He overlooked the fact that in all these forms included 
emt Sg ee eae 
* Under var. Haydenii Dr. Brand made the following remarks: ‘‘ The forms from 
the southern Rocky Mountains, which could be counted to this, are better to be 
regarded as depauperate forms of subsp. delicatum.” ; 
