MOUNTAIN WTST ENMRONMENTAL SERMCES 



P.O BOX U7l 



aiBTWE. UTOMIXG 82003 



(307) 634-6328 



Jtntury 14, 1992 



Peter Lettica 

 Box 8944 

 HissouU, MT 39807 



Dear Peter, 



The problea Involving Erlogonua lagoput Is r«Cher coaplex. Let ae start 

 with E_. multlceps ssp. canua whose type case froa Custer. The type is the 

 saae as all the aaterlal southward along the west slope of the ^■■■■■# Big 

 Horns at least as far as Lovell and w«st to the Brldger and Froaberg areas. 

 The perianth is noraally pubescent externally although soae populations have a 

 few plants with glabroui perianths, especially around Horseshoe Bend north of 

 Lovell. The following names are b-tsed on the saae type: £_• brevicaule ssp. 

 canua , E_. brevicaule var. canua , and E_. pa ucif lorua var. canua . The only 

 difference I can find between these plants and E_. brevicaule ssp. orendense 

 var. aicranthua is the pubescent perianth. Uhen the perianth is glabrous, 

 there is no difference except geography. 



The type of E. lagopus caae froa Dayton on the east slope of the Big Horns. 

 The type population has never been relocated. Furtheraore, no other 

 populations in the group have been found on the east slope of the Big Horns. 

 What then is E. lagopus ? Is it the saae as E_. b revicaule var. canua or is It 

 different? The type is in very poor shape. It was collected in Septeaber 

 which would be quite late for var. canuo to be flowering. Rydberg said that 

 the perianth was glabrous, yet if I reaeaber correctly. It was in fact 

 pubescent when I examined it (or perhaps soae flowers were glabrous and soae 

 pubescent). Since we cannot find any additional aaterlal on the east slope, 

 we have only the type to coapare to, which is not adequate to resolve the 

 problem. 



1 cannot consider var. canua on the west slope as any kind of hybrid 

 because of its relatively broad range and relatively constant morphology- And 

 I cannot agree with Reveal that it belongs with E_. paucif lorua which has a 

 whitish perianth and flowers in heads. 



I have decided to consider E. lagopus the same as E_. brevicaule var. canum 

 rather than consider it as something different. If var. canua is placed under 

 E. brevicaule , then E. lagopus must go there too whether it has glabrous or 

 pubescent perianths because there are known differences from the overall 

 morphology of E^ brevicaule . 



As for the nomenclature, one rule must be kept in mind: a name has no 

 priority outside its own rank. Eriogonum l agopus was described as a species 

 and was never transferred to subspecies or varietal status as far as I know, 

 nor were any varieties or subspecies described under it. Therefore, it has no 

 priority outside the rank of species. This means that the epithet lagopus can 

 never have priority over canum at the varietal or subspecies rank. 



