95 



duplicate l>'pe specimen of this, Geycr .^40, from the (iray 

 Herbarium shows a large hraiuh, with liiu'ar leaves, 2-2.7 mm. 

 broad, and a white puberulence on the caly.x, j:)edicels, and 

 leaves. Dr. Cray raised this variety to specific rank,'' describing 

 it in Latin, then eight years later translated his description into 

 English"* as "Glabrous, above sometimes minutely hirsute- 

 pubescent, . . . leaves very narrowly linear (an inch or two long, 

 about a line wide)." 



The next general treatment of these plants was by Elias 

 Nelson in 1899 in his Revision of the Western North American 

 Phloxes. Like Dr. Gray, he maintained the two plants as species, 

 but characterised P. longifolia as with leaves 2-3 mm. wide, and 

 P. linearijolia with leaves 1-L5 mm. wide, and allowed both 

 to have the leaves either glabrous or pubescent. He described 

 several other species of the same general affinity. 



A later monographic revision was published in 1907 by A. 

 Brand. ^ He maintained P. longifolia as an aggregate species, 

 giving it a general inclusive range and description, but not 

 citing any specimens or including any subsp. or var. typica 

 along with the others. He treats as subsp. linearijolia (Gray) 

 Brand the plants with leaves 1-2 mm. broad, and either 

 puberulent or glabrous. Since the name started with Hooker, 

 this authority should, of course, be corrected to read subsp. 

 linearijolia (Hook.) Brand. 



The original descriptions of these two plants are short and 

 somewhat indefinite. The Wyeth type of P. longijolia Nutt. in- 

 cluded a mixture of three glabrate plants with one puberulent 

 plant. Dr. Gray's treatment allowed both variations of pubes- 

 cence in both species. So also did Elias Nelson, but he divided 

 the plants primarily on the width of the leaf. The latter student 

 apparently did not see the type specimens of these two, or he 

 could not have called the narrow leaved plant linearijolia and 

 the broad leaved one longijolia, which is just the reverse of the 

 nature of the original specimens. Brand continued this same 

 error, at least for linearijolia. The treatments by the authors of 

 the various current floras so closely follow these monographic 

 treatments that they will not be discussed here in detail. 



3 Proc. Am. Acad. 8: 255, 1870. 



« Syn. Fl. N. Am. 2, pt. 1: 133, 1878. 



5 Pflanzenreich I\^ fam. 250: 65, 1907. 



