1902] A REVISION OF THE GENUS NEMO PHI I A 203 



As for the original descriptions, each easily includes the other. The only 

 possible remaining ground for separating the two species lies in the fact that 

 Hooker and Arnott describe their plant as having leaves precisely like those 

 of A^, parviflora. There is no large- flowered species which has leaves of that 

 style except A^. phacelioides, with which they were well acquainted and which 

 does not grow in the same part of the continent as A^. Menziesii. Moreover, had 

 the leaves been essentially different from those of N. insignis, Hooker and 

 Arnott would surely have made note of the fact in contrasting forms a and /3. 

 These considerations seem to the author to establish the identity of A. 

 msignis with N, Me7iziessi, and the priority of the latter name. 



Dr. Fischer de Waldheim kindly sent to the Herbarium of the University 

 of California a flowering branch from the type specimen of N, heterophylla. 

 An examination of this and a consideration of the original description (which, 

 by the way, it contradicts in having the upper leaves always opposite and 

 Tiever sessile) show that it is one of the countless forms of N, Menziesii {wot 

 of N, parviflora, as Gray and others have thought). N, liniflora is another 

 of these forms. Had Fischer and Meyer themselves collected in California, 

 they would have known better how to allow for variation in Nemophila. 



In the expanded description of N, Menziesii referred to above, we find 

 *' coroUae (caeruleae parcenigro-punctatae) . . . /' If the corolla is dotted, 

 tt is probable that the type is the form must common in the north coast 

 ranges of California, namely, that which Mr. Bioletti has separated as A^. 

 intermedia. But such a consideration aside, A^. intermedia is not a good 

 species (see above and note to N, Menziesii var. atomarid). 



Throughout California, except in the north and the high 



mountains. 



Specimens examined: California: Ukiah, Purdy ; Mendocino co., 

 Ckand/er; Ft. Koss, Davy no. 1673; Adobe canon, Sonoma zo., Michener &» 

 Bioletti; Santa Rosa canon and Kenwood, Sonoma co., M, S, Baker; Vaca- 

 ville, Jepson, Piatt; Mt. Tamalpais, C/iandler no. 281 ; Angel island, San 

 Francisco bay, Michener &^ Bioletti; Oakland, Brewer no. 2764, Holder no. 

 2520; Berkeley, fresh material ; Briones hills, Contra Costa co., Chandlerno. 

 595; Bryants, Contra Costa co., Chandler no. 575; Moraga valley, Contra 



no. 162A! Aft. niahlo. rjurndler no. o70 : San Francisco, 



Hall 



Chandler, Davy no. 2975, Jepson, etc.; Palo Alto, Dudley; Tres Pinos, 

 Dudley; Pajaro hills, Monterey co.. Chandler no. 410; Monterey, Plaskett ; 

 Pacific Grove, Chandler; San Luis Obispo co.. Brewer no. 406, Mabel M. 

 Miles no, 146; Santa Barbara, 5ra;/^^^^^/ Santa Susanna mis., Breu^er no. 

 216; Leonis valley, Z^a^/j no. 2610; Claremont, Martha Allen, Chandler; 

 San ^^rn^rdxno, Parish no. 25, Setchell ; Gavilan, Riverside co., Hall no. 

 2931 ; Winchester, Hall; Temescal mts., Hall no. 406; San Jacinto, Mrs, 

 Gregory; San Jacinto mts,. Hall: Temecula. Cleveland; Banner, Brandegee ; 



