August 26, [910 7 1 



Last winter, while copying the descriptions of Kello 

 lupine species, I saw at once that my L. arenicola is the same as 

 L. lacteus, and furthermore, they are both from the same region. 

 Although Kellogg's type is no longer in existence, I have no 



hesitation in referring my L. arenicola to this species, and any 

 person wdio compares the two descriptions can hardly tail to 

 reach the same conclusion. The accompanying figure of the 

 floral parts is taken from my no. 7609, the type of L. arenicola. 

 According to my description I failed to see wdiat Kellogg did, 

 that the wings are "ciliate at the base or origin of the claw." 

 But on the contrary, I fail to find that the banner is ciliate at 

 the same place, but do notice a little ciliation on the back of the 

 keel near the base, which is rather remarkable, as indeed is the 

 ciliation on the claw of the wings, a character I have not ob- 

 served in any other species. As may be observed from the illus- 

 tration, the type of L. arenicola. shows a bractlet in the sinus 

 between the calyx lobes, whereas Kellogg says it is not present. 

 Perhaps it was present and he failed to notice it; but this sup- 

 position can not now be verified. 



LUPINUS KlNGIl Wats. Proc. Am. Acad. 8: 534. 1873. 



Lupiuits Sileri Wats. Proc. Am. Acad. 10: 345. 1875. 



Lupinus cctpitatus Greene, Pittonia 1: 171. 1888. 



Watson originally described this as having "stems appar- 

 ently from a perennial subterranean rootstock," basing it upon 

 his no. 234, collected in "Heber Valley in the Wahsatch," which 

 collection was first doubtfully referred in the Botany of the 

 King's Report to L. aridus. 



Two years later he described L. Sileri, an animal Platycar- 

 pos, and in 1S7S, in the Bibliographical Index, refers this latter 

 to /.. Kingii. I have found no explanation for so referring the 

 plant, but it may perhaps occur in Am. Naturalist i>: 270, which 

 I have not seen. Correspondents have asked me about these 

 names, but until recently I was as much in doubt as any of 

 them. Miss Eastwood kindly examined the plants for me last 

 winter, and informs ins that L. Kingii and I.. Sileri are iden- 

 tical. It seems strange that Watson should have described an 



