25 



deed. Therefore, why not apply the same principle to nomen- 

 clature? If by printing a bare plant name I am guilty of being 

 the author of that name, why not think new names and after- 

 wards claim that they were published? 



In Watson's Bibliographical Index, page 249, under Peta- 

 lostemon violaceus^ occurs the following: 



"Var. pubesceiis. Gray, PI. Ivind. 176; PI. Fendl. 33; 

 PI. Wright. I. 46." 



Referring to the Boston Journal of Natural History, 6: 176. 

 1850 (Plantae Lindheimerianae), we find this under the first 

 footnote: 



" Petalostemon virgatum, Scheele^ in Linnaea, 21, p. 461, 

 is plainly the No. 42, PL Lind. and No. 137, PI. Fendl.^ viz. a 

 pubescent variety of P. violaceiim^ perhaps connecting that spe- 

 cies with P. decumbens. The leaves in some specimens are in- 

 deed 7-foliolate, in others both 5-foliolate and 3-foliolate." 



If the term " a pubescent variety" is equal to the publica- 

 tion of ''''V2.X. pubesceiis'''' why not cite it as published where the 

 plant is first mentioned, namely in Bost. Journ. Nat. Hist. 5: 

 215. 1845? Here it is mentioned as " 42. P. VIOI.ACEUM Michx.: 

 a pubescent variety." 



In Mem. Am. Acad. II. 4: 33. 1849 (Plantae Fendlerianae), 

 we have under No. 137: "P. violaceum Michx. Fl. 2. p. 50. t. 

 jy. f. 2: — a pubescent variety; the calyx very silky-villous. 

 Five miles west of Las Vegas, New Mexico; August." 



In PI. Wright. 1: 46. 1852, this record occurs: 



" 117. Petalostemon violaceum Michx., var. pubescens 

 {Gray PL FendL p. 2)^)' P- virgatum, Scheele in Linnaea^ 21. 

 /. 461. Prairies, Austin, Texas. — From the Snake Country, in 

 the interior of Oregon, Mr. Burke sent to Sir Wm. Hooker 

 dwarf specimens of this variety, and from the Black Hills of the 

 Platte both Burke and Gordon have sent others, with densely 

 pubescent leaves and even tomentose stems, which I cannot 

 otherwise distinguish from this species. So°me specimens, hav- 



