NOTES ON ERYNGIUM 245° 
each case from types, show that EF. articulatum and E. petio aig 
are abundantly distinct, the bracts and bractlets giving the head 
very different appearance. _— our dizer e was prepared, Metara, 
Coulter and Rose have kindly se 
with descriptions of the two species  peorecel for their forthooming 
‘Second Revision of North American Siisanreay We are i 
H 
clusion at which we had indie These anahars now regard Ff. 
Harknessii Curran as synonymous with EL. petiolatum. We do not 
know what their F’. petiolatum (ave. Umbell. 97) may be, but it 
can hardly be either F. petiolatum Hook. or E. articulatum. In 
view of the confusion that has arisen between the two species, the 
following synonymy may be found useful :— 
E. petrionarum Hook. Fl. Bor. Amer. i. 259 (1833); Torr. & Gray, 
Fl. N. Amer. i, 604 (1840); Torr. Bot. Wilkes, 315 (1873), 
excl. aya 5 Brewer & Watson, Bot. Calif. i. 255 (1876), 
excl. sy 
Ei. eum var. juncifolium A. Gray in Proc. Amer. Acad. viii. 
385 (1872); S. Watson, —- 421, excl. syn. 
E. articulatum Coulter & Rose, Revis. N. Amer. Umbellif. 98 
(1888); Howell, Fl. N. W. Amer. i. 268 (1898); non Hook. 
EK. articunatum Hook. Lond. Journ. Bot. vi. 232 (1847). 
E. petiolatum Torr. Bot. Wilkes, 815 (1873), quoad syn. ; 
Brewer & Watson, Bot. Calif. i. < (1876), quoad syn. 
E.. petiolatum var. juncifolium 8. Wats. Index , 421, quoad syn. 
FE. Harknessii Curran in Bull. Calif. Acad. iii. 158 (1885). 
II. Orner Specizs. 
NASTURTIFOLIUM Juss. ex Delaroche, Eryngium, p. 46, t. 17. 
a 2 iu 
Minaley in Bot. Biol. 
K. onrentare Mill. See ao viii. no. 6, queried as peer 
in Index Kewensis, i is rightly so referred. This is the “* H. Orie 
foliis trifidis’’ of Tournefort (Cor. a which Delaroche slatée 
among his ‘‘species minus t dubie,’”’ with the note :— 
‘* Folium vidi in herbario Vaillantii hoc nomine a, 
§ right. rather believe that this specimen is from the Duch 
Pantene. as it is not said to be from Vaillant, and there is in the 
