1 9 20 1 SH ERF F—BI DENS 



91 





the Orient and B. siibalternans DC. of South America. I have seen two 

 specimens by E. 0. Wooton from New Mexico (Mesilla Valley, Dona Ana 

 County, October 1895, U.S. Nat. Herb., nos. 561445 and 663170; referred to 

 B. anthriscoides DC. by Wooton and Standley, Contrib. U.S. Nat. Herb. 

 19:704. 191 5) that are evidently true B. bipinnata L., yet which approach B. 

 siibalternans DC. A third plant, also by Wooton (Las Cruces, New Mexico, 

 October 1895, Herb. N.Y. Bot. Gard.), approaches B. subaltcrnans DC. in 

 foliage still more, but is nevertheless clearly a form of B. bipinnata L. All 

 three of these plants are suggested by the type of B. duran^inensis. They 

 appear, however, to be entirely distinct in a specific way. Future field studies, 

 to determine the range of variation and the limits of demarcation for the 

 Durango plants, are highly desirable. 



No other group in the genus Bidens has been so badly neglected 

 heretofore, considering the number of species involved, as has that 

 group native to the Hawaiian Islands and other islands of the 

 Pacific, and, by some authors, segregated as a separate genus, 

 Campylotheca. Nearly a century ago Gaudichaud (Voy. Freycinet 

 Bot. 464. pL 85. 1826-1829), describing a species collected in the 

 Hawaiian Islands during Freycinet's voyage, named the plant 

 Bidens micrantha. Shortly afterward Cassini (Diet. Sci. Nat. 



j 51:475. 1827) called attention to the curved achenes of Gaudi- 



chaud's species. He made this achenial character the basis for 



! proposing his new genus Campylotheca. Later Lessixg. (Linnaea 



I 6:508. 183 1) accepted Cassini's genus for species like Bidens mi- 



crantha Gaud., but he erected a new genus, Adenolepis, to include 

 a somewhat different form. I propose to discuss Adenolepis in a 

 future article. Concerning Campylotheca, however, we may pro- 

 ceed to note that the name was retained by De Candolle in his 



I Prodromus (5:593. 1836), although elsewhere it was accorded only 



slight attention. In fact, the collections in those days embraced so 



I few specimens from the Pacific Islands that little study was made of 



I the Pacific flora by taxonomists. Nuttall. in 184 1 (Trans. Amer. 



[ Phil. Soc. N.S. 7:368), reduced Campylotfieca to the rank of a 



section under Bidens, but did not give extended reasons for so doing. 

 His attention had been directed to the subject by his having 

 traveled among the Hawaiian Islands and discovered there at least 

 one new species of Bidens (B. gracilis). Nuttall, however, did 

 evince a rejection of Cassixi's main character for Campylotheca, 



