OPEN LETTERS, 
TWO CORRECTIONS. 
THE SOURCE OF WELWITSCHIA. 
READERS of the BOTANICAL GAZETTE are requested to correct an inad- 
vertence in the August number, page 152, where it is stated that the inflor- 
escence and dissections of Welwitschia ere given by us were made 
from a plant growing at Kew. The specimens were sent to me by Mr. 
Dinter, a German botanist and Ssecreaunee now settled in German S. W. 
Africa. The details are given in his letter published in 7he Gardeners’ 
Chronicle 24:27. 189 After making some gross dissections, I handed 
the material to Reotouace Farmer for more minute investigation: — MAXWELL 
T. MAsters, London. 
CONFUSED SPECIES OF AGROPYRON. 
I am indebted to Mr. Jared G. Smith, of the Division of geen! of 
the Department of Agriculture, for calling my attention to an error in the 
article “‘ Vegetation Regions of the Prairie Province”’ in the Sees for 
June 1898. The grass referred to on page 385, oth line from the bottom, 
should be Agropyron spicatum. A. spicatum should also be read instead of 
A. pseudorepens on page 394, 4th line from the top. A. pseudorepens is a 
grass of the meadow formation as stated on page 389; the xerophyte of the 
foothill region is 4. sficatum. The same correction should be made in the 
Phytogeography of Nebraska in the discussion of the foothill grass formation. 
This removes what seemed to be an anomaly in ecology. That the same 
a xerophyte of the table lands of the foothill region, was a puzzle. Con- 
fusion of two closely related species, which have commonly passed under 
the same name of 4. glaucum, was at the root of the matter. It is very grati- 
fying to have the systematists clear up ecological problems in sis Maly 
ner.— Roscoe Pounp, Lincoln, Neb. 
ot). 355 
