1918] NELSON & MACBRIDE—WESTERN PLANTS 67 
practical classification; on the contrary, his reduction of named 
forms based on the presence or absence or shape or size of the scales 
in the corolla substantiates CHANDLER’S observations that the 
variations of these organs do not furnish suitable criteria‘ for the 
determination of specific values. BRAND attempts to add weight 
to his maintenance of NV. nemorensis by the following analysis of its 
range in relation to that of N. heterophylla: “Das Hauptver- 
breitung trum dieser Art scheint die Santa Clara County zu 
sein, wihrend das der vorigen wohl die Mendocino County ist. In 
diesen beiden Counties kommt nur eine Art vor, wahrend in den 
mittleren Counties beide sich finden.”” This argument, however, 
loses its force upon the realization that, although these counties are 
separated by a distance of over 100 miles, they are equally in the 
coastal region of the state and enjoy essentially identical ecological 
conditions. Moreover, all the specimens from this region are very 
similar in foliage and pubescence, but the material secured in the 
interior portion of the state and in Oregon is almost always more 
densely pubescent and usually displays a tendency to have bipin- 
natifid leaves. Accordingly it seems desirable to recognize this 
inland state form as an ecological variant of the coastal plant, 
letting one varietal designation include all the forms of the interior 
regardless of the development of the scales in the corolla. Since 
BRAND indicated his subvar. tenera as being “Die Form des siid- 
lichen Oregon und der Sierra Nevada,” this name may be retained 
for these plants. 
NEMOPHILA PARVIFLORA Dougl., var. AUSTINAE (Eastw.) 
Brand, Pflanzenreich iv. 251:55. 1913.—N. explicata Nels. and 
Macbr. Bor. Gaz. 55:377. 1913 should be referred here. 
PENTSTEMON PERPULCHER A. Nels. Bor. Gaz. 522273. 1911.— 
RypBeErc has expressed the opinion (Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 40:482. 
1913) that P. perpulcher and P. unilateralis Rydb., loc. cit. 332150. 
1906, arethesame. This assertion is strengthened by the statement 
that he has had the opportunity of comparing cotype material of 
the former with the type of the latter, ‘which is deposited in the 
herbarium of the New York Botanical Garden.” This location 
of the type of P. unilateralis is rather puzzling in view of the fact 
that that species was said originally to be based on “ P. secundiflorus 
