70 - Muhlenbergia, Volume 8 



specimen in the herbarium of Lindley. He changes the char- 

 acter of the stem from "erect" to "subfrutescent, decumbent," 

 and in this is followed by Torrey and Gray, Fl. N. A. 1: 376. 

 1840. They indicate that they had' seen a specimen collected 

 by Douglas, but at the present time there seems to be no speci- 

 men extant in this country, with the exception of a fragment in 

 the Gray Herbarium, consisting of a couple of leaves, several 

 flowers and pods. 



In 1873, Watson, in Proc. Am. Acad. 8: 525, says: "The 

 species has been known only from the figure ^Bot. Reg. 19, t. 

 1595) and a cultivated specimen in Herb. Lindley. These seem 

 to accord sufficiently well with the ordinary L. cytisoides Agh., 

 and the older name is retained." 



Watson's disposition of the species has been accepted by 

 botanists without question up to the present time, with the ex- 

 ception of Greene, who in Flora Franciscana 46, treats rivularis 

 as a synonym of arboreus. It seems strange that Watson should 

 have ignored the judgment of botanists who had seen the origi- 

 nal, and transferred the name to an entirely difTerent group, the 

 Latifolii, not seeing the differences that are to be found in the 

 descriptions of rivularis and cytisoides. 



About two years ago, Miss Eastwood, then at the Gray Her- 

 barium, wrote me that L. propinqiais Greene, is probably the 

 same as riznilaris, and that my 680^ from Carmel bay, Califor- 

 nia, may be the .'-ame, a conclusion I had also arrived at inde- 

 pendently. Earlv this year she wrote from London, with one 

 of my specimens before her, that "6804 is probably L. rimilaris.''^ 



Last summer while at the Gray Herbarium, I noted the 

 following concerning the jjlant here described as L. ligiiipes: 

 "May be L. rivularis. There are a couple of leaves in the Gray 

 Herbarium which agree almost perfect!)-, but the flower is smal- 

 ler. vSmooth pods." This fragment and the older descriptions 

 have somewhat shaken my belief that the upright shrubby plant 

 from Carmel bay is true rivularis. There is considerable evi- 

 dence to show that rivularis and 7'ariicolor ma\' be identical. 

 L. variicolor has a smaller flower than either arboreus or the 

 Carmel bay plant, and Lindle)''s reference to "the diversity of 



