igi2] NELSON— IDAHO PLANTS 415 



D. linearis is referred. Following this, apparently not much is 

 gained by the publication of E. pumilus Hook. (Lond. Journ. Bot. 

 6:242), nor the new combination (E.canescens Parry [Jones Exp.], 

 no. 239), for Gray refers both of these also to E. ochroleucum. 

 Gray in the Synoptical Flora (1:213. 1884) continues the con- 

 fusion that had been increased by the publication of E. peucephyllus 

 (Proc. Am. Acad. 16:89. 1880) , in which characters belonging in 

 part to both of Hooker's species are combined. 



These facts have been recited merely to show the impossibility 

 of foreseeing the degree of variation or even the direction in which 

 it will tend; hence the synonyms. Incidentally it shows that 

 synonyms are inseparable from any period of great botanical 

 activity, even when the work is in the hands of such veritable 



princes in systematic work as Hooker, Nuttall, Torrey, Gray, 

 and Parry. 



In 1865, Gray published E. Bloomeri (Proc. Am. Acad. 6: 540). 

 Taking the material then available he was more than justified. 

 It has taken nearly half a century of additional exploration to 

 lead any one to question its validity. It happened that the first 

 specimens of it represented it in its most depauperate stage, from 

 the arid mountains of Nevada. Subsequent collections greatly 

 extend its range, and a series of specimens leading straight into 

 typical E. filifolius is now at hand, and may no doubt be dupli- 

 cated in many of the larger herbaria. Even its raylessness is not 

 an infallible character. Macbride secured at Silver City, on a 

 stony hilltop, a series of specimens that, if sorted and reported 

 upon by one not familiar with their history, would appear as E. 

 Bloomeri (rayless) and E. filifolius (radiate). These grew inter- 

 mingled and were intentionally collected together and placed 

 together upon the sheets to emphasize that fact. Under the cir- 

 cumstances one may even wonder why retain the name at all, but 

 in view of the marked differences between the extremes in the series, 

 perhaps the name had best stand varietally for the rayless forms. 



In Coulter and Nelson's New Manual of Botany (p. 527), the 

 opinion is expressed that E. curoifolius Piper, Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 

 27:396. 1900, is the same as E. luteus A. Nels., Bull. Torr. Bot. 

 Club 27:33. 1899. More careful scrutiny indicates that that opinion 



