280 PATAGONIAN EXPEDITIONS I BOTANY. 



independent species is preferable to the view of M. Kurtz I am not able 

 to decide. On this question I offer no opinion. D. 



P. 864 : 



CHUQUIRAGA DUSENII O. Hoffm. 



Should be deleted, being identical with C. kingii. Spegazzini has 

 erroneously united C. dusenii with C. argentea Speg., thinking that the 

 former is only a variety of the latter. In Nov. Add. Flor. Patag., ii, p. 

 17, he writes "est forma robusta . . ., sed nullo modo a typo recedens; 

 saepe in eodem caespite forma typica et forma dusenii simul inveniuntur." 

 I presume that he does not know, or at least does not well know C. 

 kingii. Writing this in an exploring excursion in South Brazil and not 

 having any specimens at hand of the two species, I am, unfortunately, 

 unable to note the strikingly different characteristics of the two species. 

 I may say, however, that C. kingii is a robust, stiff shrub, about 8-10 

 dm. high; and C. argentea, on the other hand, is a much weaker shrub, 

 generally about 2 dm. high. They occur also in different localities ; 

 kingii is limited to North and East Patagonia, having its southern limits 

 about S. lat. 44 ; argentea is, as already stated, limited to South Pata- 

 gonia. D. 



P. 864 : 



C. ERINACEA Don. 



Macloskie states that this species occurs on the east coast of South 

 Patagonia. This statement is undoubtedly incorrect, and is based on a 

 mistake made by Spegazzini in Nov. Add. Flor. Patag., ii, p. 18, line 10, 

 where C. erinacea Speg. (non Don) should be replaced by C. acicularis 

 Don. (Plant. Patag. austr., no. 221, cited by Spegazzini refers by name to 

 the last-mentioned species). Spegazzini makes another mistake in unit- 

 ing C. hystrix Don with C. acicularis Don, two species which are well 

 distinguished from each other. D. 



Skottsberg writes regarding this specimen: "I cannot get a better 

 name for the species; but the specimen does not correspond with C. 

 erinacea in all respects. The flowers are more numerous than in 



erinacea." 



P. 865 : 



C. HYSTRIX Don. 



Spegazzini's statement of the area of this species is naturally too wide 

 because of his opinion that it is identical with C. acicularis. The present 



