CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN 
HERBARIUM. VI. 
AVEN NELSON. 
SpHAEROSTIGMA F. & M., Ind. Sem. Hort. Petrop. 2:49. 1835. 
Since Dr. JouNn K. Smatt published “‘Oenothera and its segre- 
gates,””* much material has been accumulating illustrative of the 
various species and tending to confirm the wisdom of the earlier 
generic limitations which were again revived in that paper. In 
this group of genera, the species of which seem particularly suscep- 
tible to differences in environment, we may expect great variation, 
and therefore naturally differences of opinion as to specific limitations. 
This has resulted in a rather extended synonomy, which makes 
studies in the group more than ordinarily difficult. It is not the 
purpose of the writer to review these genera, but simply to put on 
record a study of the species of Sphaerostigma, made necessary 
by the attempt to name some material that came into his hands for 
examination. This study, in order that it might be the more com- 
plete, was extended to the collection of the Missouri Botanical Garden.” 
While listing all the species, there is no necessity for attempting a 
complete synonomy. SMALL’s paper, cited above, will furnish 
references to all the important literature on this genus, except that 
of Lfévertt£.s I give therefore only the first use of the present 
t Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 23:167. 1896. 
2 Acknowledgment is here made of the uniform courtesy and kindness of 
Director, Dr. WILLL aE ETN in permitting the examination of these valuab 
specimens—some 200 shee 
3 “Monographie du Genre Onothera.” I will not attempt to review this very’ 
elaborate paper, but since LEVEILLE’s notions of generic limitations are so completely 
out of harmony with the now accepted ideas of American botanists, nape be per 
missible to relist the species of the American genus Sphaerostigma. The specim 
of Sphaerostigma in the Mo. Bot. Garden Herb. were examined by io and 
his annotations. It is extremely difficult to believe that his grouping of the specimens 
can stand, esp2cially when one finds that the annotations do not harmonize with 
final published list, and that the nomenclature of the illustrations in some insta 
does not coincide with that of the text. 
54 
