ii2 Muhlenbergia, Volume 5 



from Washington to Arizona. Beal, in Grasses N. Am. 2: 611. 

 1896, has "Mich., H. E. Owen, Col., Cassidy." But floras of 

 neither state, of later date, include it. See C. F. Wheeler, Cat. 

 Mich. PI. in Rept. Mich. Board Agr. (1898), and Rydberg, Fl. 

 Colo. (1906). It was first collected "about 1862, by Bolander, 

 near the Mission Dolores, in a field under cultivation" (6), and 

 the same collector affords the only record in the Botany of the 

 State Survey. Evidently it was of rare occurrence at that date 

 in the region where it is now "one of the commonest grasses." (6) 

 While it is so wide spread and apparently abundant on the 

 western coast, there are but few printed notices of its occurence. 

 Those I have been able to find are as follows: Davidson, Erythea 

 1: 101. 1893; PI- Los Angeles Co. 32. 1896; Bull. S. Cal. Acad. 

 6: 11. 1907. "Rare and local in Los Angeles in 1893; has con- 

 siderably increased in the original localities, and may be found 

 in scattered patches in many parts of the country." — McClatchie, 

 Erythea 2: 78. 1894, reported from Santa Catalina Island; Fl. 

 Passd. 629. 1895, "common below 2000 ft. alt." — Hansen, PI. 

 Sequoia gigantea Reg. 9. 1896. — Jepson, Fl. W. Mid. Cal. 71. 

 1901. — Howell, Fl. N. W. Am. 770. 1903. — Abrams, Fl. Los 

 Ang. 54, 1904, "common along streets, and in waste places." — 

 Piper, Fl. State Wash. 144. 1906, who alone reports the spe- 

 cies, as well as the var. Gussoni. The references from southern 

 California indicate an introduction probably little earlier than 

 1890, and a diffusion generally less rapid and extensive than has 

 taken place about San Bernardino. 



Bromus rubens is likewise closely confined to the Pacific 

 coast, where it is found from Washington to southern Califor- 

 nia. Beal includes Kansas in its range (7), probably as a waif, 

 for Shear (8) reports a single eastern specimen, "on wool-waste 

 at Boston." 



On the western coast the record begins with Lemmon's col- 

 lection in Plumas county, the only one noted in the Botany of 

 the State Survey (1880), and probably the earliest made in 

 North America. It appears to be less common in Washington 

 and Oregon than in California. It is not mentioned in Piper 

 attd Beattie's Fl. Palouse Reg. (1901), and Piper quotes but a 



