1886. ] BOTANICAL GAZETTE. 59 
somewhat strangely followed by a species (E. Greggii) which she 
knows only from description. 
aving on a previous study of this genus carefully examined 
its character, and at one time even ventured to anticipate Mrs. 
Curran’s conclusions in merging it into Eriogonum,as E, Nema- 
caulis, on the advice of other experienced botanists, a second 
sober thought induced me to withhold my rash hand, and while 
still seeing how a further development of involucral characters, 
by uniting the lower series o spiral bracts into a true whorl, 
would break down the generic distinction, till this is accom- 
plished the genus may well stand as Prof. Gray suggested, one 
of the very best of the Eriogonex genera. Therefore t 
not the botanical verdict will be in the case under consideration 
“not proven,” and Nemacaulis Nuttallii Benth. will still escape 
an italicised reduction. 
Coming next to Chorizanthe, the above writer, after designat- 
ing two unimportant varieties, comes out with a detailed descrip- 
tion of a minute, inconspicuous plant (barely three inches high), 
under the name of Chorizanthe insignis. “Why so designated 
-does not appear, either from the specimen or description. At 
the same time nota single character is given to keep it out of the 
genus Oxytheca, as at present defined, the entire absence of basal 
Spurs, as well as an increased number of flowers, with obscure 
bracteoles at the base, clearly separating it from C. leptoceras, 
which it outwardly resembles, and, therefore, unmistakably a 
genuine Oxytheea, nly approximating, as one would naturally 
expect, the allied but very distinct genus Chorizanthe. Having 
thus glanced at the descriptive work, we may go back to the pre- 
Iminary views with which the descriptions are prefaced. 
While realizing fully the difficulties that seem to crowd upon 
the path of discovery in the clear definition of the Eriogonous 
genera, we fail to get any light here in the confused statements 
made. Instead of which there are crude views of relationship, 
such as comparing the involucroid perianth (2) of Lastarriza, 
With the entirely normal one of Ho listeria, to which it has not 
the most remote resemblance, and which the author of the genus 
failed to recognize in his clear description. 
_ The “theory ” of a reduced perianth in Chorizanthe Lastar- 
ria is demolished in a single paragraph by the inability of the 
Writer to recognize under her microscope a character which the 
Original deseriber clearly laid down, which is (perhaps in rather 
_ &n exaggerated way) shown in the published plate, and which all 
- Subsequent descriptions have plainly stated, viz: a series of lok 
appendages alternating with the stamens, reasonably representing 
