184 MEMOIRS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 



slender. Scape 2-4-flowered, seldom exceeding the leaves. Flowers 1-1.5 cm. in diam- 

 eter ; bractlets and sepals lanceolate; petals obovate. Fruit hemispheric, about 1 cm. 

 in diameter ; achenes set in very deep pits. 



It differs from the preceding in the narrow leaflets, which are scarcely at all obhque, 

 the slender rootstock, the more delicate habit and the deeply pitted fruit.^ It has nearly 

 the same range as F. glauca. 



Montana: J. H. Flodman, Nos. 591 (type), 590, 594 and 595. 1896. 



Wyoming: F. V. Hayden, 1859-60; F. Tweedy, No. 55, 1895. 



Colorado: Dr. E. Penard, No. 156, 1891; J. Ball; Trelease, 1886; C. F. Baker, No. 

 26, 1896. 



Utah: Mrs. Thompson, 1872. 



Arizona: F. H. Knowlton, No. 105, 1889. 



South Dakota: (Black Hills) Rydberg, No. 663, 1892. 



Northwest Territory: (Elk River) Kennicott; Dr. Richardson, No. 186 (in part). 



Alberta: John Macoun, 1885. 



ig. Fragaria firma. 



Fragaria Virginiaria Gray, Fl Fendl. 4.2. 1849. Not Duch. 



f Fragaria vesca var. Americana Aven Nelson, Wyo. Exp. Sta. Bull. 28 : 102. 1896. 



Rootstock short and thick. Leaves rather thick and firm, somewhat glaucous, gla- 

 brate above, rather densely silky beneath ; petioles rather stout, 1-4 cm. long, densely 

 silky-strigose ; leaflets subsessile or short-petiolate, oblong or cuneate, 2-3 cm. long, 

 toothed above the middle, the lateral ones scarcely at all oblique at the base. Scape 

 short, densely silky-strigose, not much over .5 dm. high. Runners rather numerous, 

 long and stout. Flowers 1-1.5 cm. in diameter ; bractlets and sepals lanceolate; petals 

 obovate, exceeding the sepals by a half. Fruit hemispheric, about 1 cm. in diameter ; 

 achenes set in pits. 



This is evidently closely related to the two preceding, but differs in the texture of the 

 leaves and the hairiness of the scape and petioles. The leaves have about the same form 

 and texture as in F. cuneifolia, from Avhich the plant differs mainly in the fruit. It 

 also resQmbles F. pumila, but differs in the glaucous hue. 



Arizrma: G. C. Neally, No. 260, 1891; E. A. Mearns, No. 71, 1887; Edw. Palmer, 

 1869; No. 487, 1890 ; J. W. Tourney, No. 96, 1892; E. 0. Wooton, No. 91, 1892. 

 Utah: M. E. Jones, No. 5389, 1894. 



' That yiaa the case at least with the type specimens which were seen by me in fresh state. 



