J 3^ Muhlenbergia, Volume 6 



Comparing the 01 iginal descriptions, one finds "keel naked," 

 and "pod . . 6-seeded" among the characters ascribed to 

 apricus, while vallicola is described as having the keel "bearded 

 on the upper half," and 'the "pods . . 3-5-seeded." A care- 

 ful study of the material at hand shows that the keel is bearded 

 above on the apical half in both forms, and also the pods vary 

 from 3-7-seeded in either case. Hence other characters must be 

 sought if the two are distinguishable. I do find the seeds with 

 Mr. Heller's specimen "pale, unmarked," excepting that there is 

 a suggestion of the usual lateral line on each side — a darker 

 flesh-colored line relieved by the paler yellowish ground. Other- 

 wise I see no characters present that I feel may be relied upon 

 to distinguish apricus from vallicola. I have, in truth, collected 

 no seed of vallicola myself, my one collection being in flower 

 only; but I have collected, and have before me now, ripened 

 seeds from the several stations from which came my apricus 

 numbers 7.?,-, IJ74, ijpj, 1426, 142-/ and 1485, and believe that 

 the seed characters pointed out above justify the recognition of 

 apricus as a namable form. 



Typical vallicola belongs to the Sacramento valley and prob- 

 ably also well southward into the San Joaquin valley; while the 

 variety is at its best on the west side of the Santa Clara valley 

 111 Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, just at the edge of the 

 fog line of the humid coast belt. 



A common and conspicuous form about Stanford Univer- 

 sity, the latter was the first member of the Micranthus group to 

 come under my notice-. Using Jepson's Flora, I called it L. 

 micranthus tricolor, and soon found that that was the name by 

 which it was generally known at Stanford. Jepson undoubtedly 

 followed Watson (4) in thus disposing of Lindlcv's /.. /'/color, 

 and both of these authors have evidently interpreted vallicola to 

 be the plant described by Undley; but if either of these men 

 compared the plant in question with the plate illustrating L. 

 lmolo>\ I can n^i see how such a decision could have been made. 

 Direct evidence that Watson's L. micranthus var bicoloris Hel- 



(4) Brewer and Watson, Mot. Cal. 1: 123. 



