1 889. J BOTANICAL GAZETTE. 53 



bly entire, shorter style and longer pedicel — a manifest vari- 



Hookeriana. We are thus led to 



■s 



S. Hooker tan 

 Rocky Mountai 



lasiolepis and 6. irrorata, 

 S. lasiandra and S. Fendleriana, S. Scouleriana and S. fla- 

 vesccns, onlv that both in habitat and character the difference 

 is more pronounced, for in no one of the parallel cases men- 

 tioned is the coast plant confined to the immediate sea shore. 

 In the Flora Bcreali-Americana two widely sundered lo- 

 calities are given for this species, viz. ; " Grand Rapids of 

 the Saskatchawan, Douglas. N. W. coast of America, 

 Scouler." Writing while all the facts were fresh, Hooker 

 seems to have known that the plant had been collected by 

 Scouler on the N. W. coast, but there are no specimens 

 credited to Scouler in the Ilookerian herbarium. "There is 

 only one sheet of S. Hooker/ana. and on it are the analyses 

 whi ch indicatethat from this the plate in the Flora Boreah- 

 Americana was drawn. To it is attached a label in the hand- 

 writing of Douglas, ' Near the Grand Rapids of the Sas- 

 katchawan, rare— a scrubby, low shrub ' " (Baker). The plant 

 figured is identical with that now so well known from all 

 along our northwestern coast. I believe the specimens were 

 collected by Scouler, and that the Douglas ticket, carrying 

 with it the Saskatchawan habitat, was misplaced by Dr. Bar- 

 ratt. The very wording of the ticket, "A scrubby low 

 bush," is inconsistent with the distant nodes and smooth vig- 

 orous shoots of the figure ; but, above all, it is incredible that 

 a tree which by the concurrent testimony of all recent ob- 

 servers is known onlv as growing on the beach or around 

 the brackish ponds of the Pacific coast, should, " once upon 

 a time," half a century ago, have been found east of all the 

 Rockies and thenceforth escape detection by all subsequent 

 explorers. Beyond this negative evidence, which could 

 scarcely be stronger than it is, there lies another considera- 

 tion not to be lost sight of. When two species, represen- 

 tative each of the other, are found occupying areas separated 

 by physical features which would appear sufficient to cut oft 

 all interchange, one becoming modified by and restricted to 

 a humid coast environment, the other modified by and re- 

 stricted to a high mountain environment, it is absurd to ex- 

 pect that one will be found invading the area of the other and 



preserving intact its specific identity. 



For my own part, I know too well how prone Dr. Bar- 



