Supplementary List. a1 
POLYGALACER, 
127. Polygala sanguinea L. Atkinson and Neligh, (B.) 
UMBELLIFERAE, 
128. Cieuta bulbifera L. Cherry Co. Not in fruit, (B.) 
129. Osmorrhiza claytoni (Michx.) B.S. P. Cass Co., (Sw.) 
130. Afusentum dimrricatum Nutt. Harrison, (B.) 
131. Pemeedunum kingii Watson. This, possibly, should be included in the 
genus Pseudocymopterus Coult. and Rose, as the dorsal ribs are 
more or less winged. Scott's Pass, July 22, 1891, (R.) 
SAXIFRAGACEA, : 
132. Aibes setosum Lindl, Dawes Co., (Sw.) 
Loasace® 
133. Alentselia albicaulis (Hook.) Dougl. Scott's Bluffs Co., (R.) In the 
specimens collected the seeds are muricate, but the leaves are 
nearly entire or more rarely sinuately toothed. 
HALORAGE, 
134, Callitriche verna L. Kennedy, July 1891, (B.) 
Rosace&. 
135. Crategus subvillosa Schrad. Sarpy and Cass counties, (Sw.) 
136. Rosa nutkana Presl. Curtis, Frontier Co., June 22. McColligan 
canon, Deuel Co., June 26, 1891, (R.) 
LEGUMINOSA. 
137. Desmodium tllinoense Gray. Reported from Cass Co., by Professor 
Swezey. 
138. Oxytropis multiceps Nutt. Hills of upper Lawrence Fork, Kimball 
Co., Aug. 10; in fruit, (R.) 
139. Astragalus bisulcatus Gray. Dakota Junction, May, 1891, (B.) 
140. (?) Astragalus pubentissimus Torr, and Gray. Canon in Gosper Co., 
June 20; Hills near Curtis, Frontier Co., June 22; Lawrence Fork, 
Banner Co., July 8; near Kimball, Aug.,12, 1891, (R.) 
141. Amorpha microphylla Pursh. Fragments covered with rust seen in 
the possession of Mr. Schofield, and said to have been collected near 
Lincoln, Sept. i891, (R.) 
POLEMONIACE#. 
142. Gilia sp ——. Glandular pubescent; root biennial, possibly per- 
ennial, stem branched above, * foot high or higher; leaves some- 
what irregularly pinnatifid; lobes linear, not wider than the rachis, 
somewhat fleshy, mucronate: flowers in a branched panicle; corolla 
violet or blue with a whitish tube, somewhat funnel-form 2 lines 
long; stamens exserted; calyx with prominentribs. The plant is 
more or less glandular all over. Mr. John Holzinger of the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture has named it Gilia pinnatifida, which without 
any doubt, it is not, as the plant is more branched, more glandular, 
the division of the leaves few and longer and narrower, and the 
corolla smaller and not at all salverform. Itstands nearer G. in- 
conspicua, from which (if distinct) it differs in being more robust, 
