A. DRACUNCULUS. 117 



34 : 252, 1916) as glabrous, but the leaves are at first canescently pubescent — according to the original description. 

 A piece of Nuttall's type at the Gray Herbarium is puberulent on the fohage and upper portion of the stem. 

 Chiefly of the lower Mississippi Valley. Type locality, shrubby savannahs around St. Louis and on the banks 

 of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. 



3. A. DRAC0NCULINA Watson, Proc. Am. Acad. 23:279, 1888. — A. dracunculns dracunculina. 



4. A. DRACUNCULOIDES PuTsh, Fl. Am. Sept. 742, 1814. — A form of A. dracunculus var. glanca, differing from 

 the type only in having perfectly glabrous herbage. Much more common in the United States than the typical 

 form. The name draciinculoides was extended by Gray (Syn. Fl. P : 369, 1884) to include all of the North Ameri- 

 can variations of A. dracunculus except glauca, the one to which it is most closely related. In fact, typical 

 dracunculoides seems no more than an ecologic state of this. Through Gray's treatment the commonest form 

 of the Rocky Mountain and Pacific States, that is, subspecies typica, had been assumed by western botanists 

 to be typical of the quite different dracunculoides, until Nelson noted the discrepancy and named it A . aromatica, 

 apparently overlooking its identity with the European A. dracunculus. The type locality is " Upper Louisiana," 

 now South Dakota. 



5. A. DRACUNCULOIDES BBEVIFOLIA Torrey and Gray, Fl. N. Am. 2:416, 1843. — A. dracunculus glauca. 

 Somewhat cinereous or glabrate. Type locality, St. Louis to the Rocky Mountains and the Saskatchewan. 



6. A. DRACUNCULOIDES INCANA Torrey and Gray, 1. c. — Probably A. dracunculus glauca, but inflorescence 

 unknown. Type locahty, Jacques River [Quebec?]. 



7. A. DRACUNCULOIDES TENUIFOLIA Torrcy and Gray, 1. c. — A. dracunculus glauca. Canescent or glabrous; 

 leaves narrow, elongated. Type locality, St. Louis to the Rocky Mountains and the Saskatchewan. 



8. A. DRACUNCULOIDES var. WOLFI Rydberg, Bull. Torr. Club 32: 128, 1905. — A. dracunculus typica. Type 

 locality, Twin Lakes, Colorado. 



9. A. DRACUNCULUS GLAUCA Besser, Hooker, Fl. Bor. Am. 1:326, 1833. — A. dracunculus subspecies glauca. 



10. A. GLAUCA Pallas, Willdenow, Sp. PI. 3: 1831, 1804.— A. dracunculus glauca. 



11. A. GLAUCA FASTIGIATA Besser, Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Mosc. 8:59, 1835. — .4. dracunculus glauca. Branches 

 fastigiate, canescent when young. Type locahty, plains of the Saskatchewan. 



12. A. GRACiLLiMA Rydberg, N. Am. Fl. 34:253, 1916. — A. dracunculus dracuncidina, but with the pubes- 

 cence canescent rather than villous. Type locality, 1 mile west of Hillsboro, Sierra County, New Mexico. 



13. A. NUTTALUANA Besscr, in Hooker, Fl. Bor. Am. 1 : 326, 1833. — From the description this seems to be a 

 glabrous, short-leaved form of A. dracunculus glauca. Type locality. Red River of the North. 



RELATIONSHIPS. 



There is a broad gap between A . dracunculus and its nearest relatives when the species 

 is taken in the broad sense as here defined. Even in Europe, where its origin is perhaps 

 to be sought, there seems to be no species with which it is in very close alUance. In 

 America it is most closely approached by A. campestris, as will be indicated under that 

 species. 



The history of the attempts at segregation within the species, both here and in the 

 Old World, is one of confusion. This is due in part to a lack of parallelism in the varia- 

 tion of the different characters, in part to indefinite characterization of the segregates, 

 and in part to a disregard of forms already described. For about a century nearly all 

 of the American forms have passed in most floras as A. dracunculoides Pursh. The 

 type of this, the common form in the Mississippi Valley, has leaves so narrow and heads 

 so small that there was some justification in separating it from the Old World A. dracun- 

 culus, but the form which is by far the most abundant in all of the western States is so 

 much more like dracunculus than it is like dracunculoides, that is, subspecies glauca of 

 the present treatment, that its inclusion in the latter by Gray (Syn. Fl. P:369, 1884) 

 has resulted in much confusion. It was the recognition of the difference between the 

 two common American forms that led Nelson to describe the broader-leaved, larger- 

 headed one as A. aromatica, apparently without considering the Asiatic type, which it 

 practically dupUcates and to which it is reduced in this paper. One of the chief charac- 

 ters assigned to aromatica by Nelson was its strong odor as contrasted with dracunculoides. 

 If this difference was constant, which seems very doubtful from field observations, it 

 would throw aromatica back into dracunculus, for the only tangible character given by 

 Gray in the Synoptical Flora for dracunculoides is that it is "wanting the scent and taste 

 of A. dracunculus." The odor alone is quite untrustworthy as is indicated by the 



