12 



As I have already stated I think the Homalobi should form the third 

 Series. It is the lowest group in the genus and next of kin to 

 Hosackia, Lathyrus and Vicia. 



His last group (Section 27) is the Triphylli, related to the 

 Homalobi but higher than it, containing A. triphyllus and aer- 

 icoleucus. I think it is an error to place the latter species with it 

 for it belongs with the Homalobi along with A. simplicifolius. 



Gray makes a third Series containing A. nothoxys, an oxytro- 

 pidoid form which I think belongs better with the Leptocarpi. He 

 evidently had not as yet worked out the other oxytropidoid species 

 A. Arizonicus and calycosus which I place among the Hamosi. 



WATSON'S REVISION. 



Thp next attempt at revising the genus is that of Watson in 

 the Appendix of King's Report. His is an amplification of Gray's 

 work as stated at its beginning. 



He corrects some of Gray's errors, and makes a few of his 

 own, but in the main it is an admirable revision of this excellent 

 work. It is easy enough to criticise the work of earlier botanists 

 who had little or no field experience and scanty and poor materinl, 

 but very few of us would have done as well. 



He puts A. Coulteri (Arthu-schottii) where it belongs, with the 

 Diphysi (Inflati) and also puts A. platytropis with it where it does not 

 belong. He keeps all of Gray's sections in Gray's order. 



He adds A. calycosus to the Chaetodontes, a natural error, bat 

 it belongs far removed in the Hamosi accordin.2 to Gray's ordsr 

 but in fact not so far removed in relationship. 



He puts A. Arizonicus with the LeiJtor-rpi where it does not 

 belong but keeps them in the Micranthi. To this group he adds a 

 subsection of "anomalous species" containing A. Andersoni, malacus, 

 Bolanderi, arrectus, atratus. obscurus and tener, another hodge-podge. 

 A. malacus belongs near the Argophylli, A. Andersoni with the Hamosi. 

 A. Bclanderi and arrectus with the Reventi-arrecti, A. atratus and 

 obscurus with the Atrati. A. tener with the Leptocarpi. 



He keeps A. humistratus among the Ocreati to which it is related 

 but belongs better with the Homalobi. 



He keeps the Alpini and Sparsiflori together under Oroboidei 

 and adds A. Breweri which belongs with the Didymocarpi; and A. 

 Lindheimeri, distortus rrd ?rbber he puts here though better placed 

 among the Leptocarpi and Hamcsi. 



He adds the section Pterocarpi which is better placed among 

 the Podo-sclerocarpi. 



He transfers A. Beckwithii from the Bisulcati to the Argophylli 

 which is also an error. He makes no improvement on the Argophylli. 



He adds A. nudus (Serenoi) to the Pectinati, wisely, but does 

 not add that to the Podo-sclerocarpi where it belongs. 



There is no improvement on the Scytocarpi. He puts A. pych- 

 nostachyus here when it belongs along with A. Palmeri among the 

 Inflati near A. Hornii. 



He puts A. cyrtoides (Gibbsii) in the Podo-sclerocarpi, but it 

 is better placed next to A. coUinus in the Collini. 



He puts A. porrectus among the Homalobi, a natural error, but 

 I think is better placed in the Collini. He puts A. Palmeri in the 

 Homalobi, but it is better placed among the Inflati. 



The revision of the genus in the Pflanzen-familien is simply 

 a copy of the work of Gray and Watson. 



