202 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [September 



ovoid or globose, scaly, rough, with a few deep pits; caruncle 

 stipe- or cap-like. 



Commonly called ''baby blue eyes." Like all other Xemophilas, this 

 species is exceedingly variable and sufficient allowance has not been made 

 for the fact by some authors. It is particularly susceptible to moisture con- 

 ditions. Where the soil is wet we find a succulent plant with sparse 

 pubescence ; where it is merely damp these characters are less pronounced ; 

 and where it is very dry the other extreme is reached — a very slender plant 

 with dense pubescence. The variations in color are also striking (see note to 

 the variety atomaria). Near the foggy coast of northern and central Cali- 

 fornia the flowers are pale blue, usually dotted toward the center ; in the 

 Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys and in the sunny south coast ranges a 

 deeper color predominates ; while in southern California^ which is practically 

 desert except where reclaimed by man, a still more intense color is found. 

 This is in accord with the common observation that in deserts flowers are 

 brighter than in moister, less sunny regions ; and since there are no accom- 

 panying variations which are at all striking, there seems to be sufficient 

 reason for regarding as one species what a lay observer might distinguish as 

 several different forms. 



While mostly hermaphrodite, flowers with sterile anthers are occasionally 

 found. They are smaller and deeper-colored than the others and according 

 to Miss Alice Eastwood^ they are associated with a more robust habit in the 

 plant. Her investigations indicate that there is no marked difference in the 

 seed-producing qualities of the two sorts of flow*ers. 



There has been much confusion in the application of the specific names 

 Menzieni and tnsi^nzs, and the writer has investigated the matter with some 

 care. The Botany of Beechey's Voyage \^2lS issued in parts. Page 152, on 

 which the description of N. Menziesii appeared, is in Part 4, issued in 1833, 

 two years before the publication of N, insignis. On page 372 (Part 8, 1840) 

 an expanded description is given and two forms, a and ;3, are noted : "a. cor- [ 



olla calycem vix duplo superanle" is stated to be the form described on page 

 152 ; "^. corolla calycem plus duplo superante" is given as equivalent to N. 

 insigniSy which had been published in the time between the issuance of pages 

 152 and 372, Hooker and Arnott, then, who were co-workers with Bentham 

 and probably had seen the type N. insignis, found nothing to distinguish that 

 species from A\ Menziesii except a slight difference in the relative size of 

 corolla and calyx, a character in which the field student of these plants can- 

 not but recognize considerable variation. Indeed, Hooker once declared that 

 N. insignis ought to be called N. Menziesii.^ 



*Erythea 3 : 152. 



3 See Jackson, in Journal of Botany 31 : 29S. ■ ♦ Bot. Mag. /. 3774* 



t 



■1 



