61 
GALINSOGA CALVA, sp. n. Annual, stems 5-30 cm. long, slender 
with long internodes, simple or branching from the base, the 
branches erect; leaves sessile or sub-petioled by the tapering 
bases, which are slightly connate, 15-30 mm. long, 2-8 mm. 
broad, lanceolate to oblanceolate, the upper linear and bract-like, 
tapering at both ends, sparingly and coarsely serrate, hirsute 
both sides, veiny below; heads few, solitary, peduncles axillary 
lucre hemispherical to campanulate, the scales, a few of the 
outer somewhat foliaceous though more or less rigid, the inner 
slightly longer and narrower, scarious ; rays few, purple or pur- 
plish, the exserted portion 1.5 mm. long and broad, triangular- 
obovate, deeply and sub-equally 3-lobed, the included portion 
about I mm. long, their akenes broader than those of the 
disk, radially compressed, the pappus rudimentary and narrow; 
disk-corollas of the same color as the rays, strongly and 
coarsely pubescent, broadly funnel-form, scarcely 2 mm. long, 
one-half as broad, strongly 5-lobed, the lobes triangular-ovate, 
acutish, the pappus about extending to the base of the lobes, 
narrowly oblong, awned, fimbriate ; akenes of the disk flowers 
ack, 1.5 to nearly 2 mm. long, obovoid, angled, the angles 
hispid. 
Talca Chugiaguilla, April, 1890 (809). Also collected subse- 
quently in the vicinity of Cochabamba (1148). The nomenclature 
of this species is extremely complicated and puzzling. А specimen 
in Herb. Columb. of Mandon's No. 81, which is published by Schultz- 
Bipontinus in Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr. as G. calva, is a good specimen 
of G. parviflora; but Dr. Britton says that the specimen of this 
number in the Herb. Kew agrees with the one which I have 
above described. Dr. Britton says nothing about Mandon’s No. 
80 at Kew, referred to the same species by Sch. Bip., and of which 
there is no specimen in our herbarium. This difficulty effec- 
tually prevents my crediting the name to Schultz-Bipontinus, 
which I am not required to do, as his name is “nude.” Mr. Baker 
(Fl. Bras., vi., Part 3, 167) increases the difficulty by referring 
this plant to Jegeria hirta, var. glabra. So far as this reference 
applies to Mr. Bang’s specimens it is wrong, for they are cer- 
tainly good Galinsoga. The subject is even farther complicated 
by the atonishing action of Dr. Watson in calling Pringle’s No. 
1282 Jegeria calva, Sch. Bip. Schultz never employed the com- 
bination thus quoted, and would unquestionably denounce such a 
combination аз an error. Mr. Pringle's plant is a good Jegeria 
> 
