CERTAIN BORRAGINACEAE. 545 
synonym E. tenuicaule Phil. in the Flora de Chile, but for some 
reason the author of that work used the much later E. uliginosum 
Phil. It is true that the former name is not desirable but since it 
is perfectly tenable, it must be used. For the complicated synonymy 
see the Flora de Chile, where Reiche gives the citations of some of the 
named forms of this rather variable species. 
Allocarya linifolia (Lehm.), comb. nov. — Anchusa linifolia Lehm. 
Asperif. 215, no. 158 (1818). A. oppositifolia & pygmaea HBK. 
Nov. Gen. et Spec. iii. 91-92 (1818). Krynitzkia linifolia (Lehm.) 
Gray, Proc. Am. Acad. xx. 266 (1885). From these names of the 
same date between which priority cannot be determined I have 
used the name selected by Dr. Gray (I. ¢.) and have followed his 
interpretation of the species. Our specimens are from Peru, Ecuador, 
and Bolivia. 
ALLOCARYA LINIFOLIA (Lehm.) Macbr., var. Kunthii (Walp.), 
comb. nov.— Anchusa Kunthii Walp. Nov. Act. Nat. Cur. xix. 372 
(1843). Antiphytum Walpersii A. DC. Prod. x. 122 (1846).  Eritri- 
chium Walpersii (A. DC.) Wedd. Chlor. And. ii. 90 (1859). The 
foliar characters given by the authors cited — the much longer and 
more uniformly linear leaves — seem to be the only differences between 
this plant and A. linifolia; the nutlets are the same. 
EREMOCARYA MICRANTHA (Torr.) Greene, var. lepida (Gray), 
comb. nov.— Eritrichium micranthum Torr., var. lepidum Gray, 
Syn. Fl. ii. pt. 1, 193 (1878). E. lepida (Gray) Greene, Pitt. i. 59 
(1887). The variety is confluent with the species, as pointed out by 
Dr. Gray, Proc. Am. Acad. xx. 275 (1885). The nutlet variation is 
nicely illustrated by Abrams’s no. 2904, Aug. 5, 1902, which is typical 
of the variety as first described except that some of the plants have 
smooth and lustrous nutlets. The description of the species given 
in the Synoptical Flora calls for either “smooth and shining or dull 
and puncticulate-scabrous” fruits. In the type-specimens these are 
smooth and Dr. Rydberg has segregated those having rough nutlets 
as E. muricata Rydb. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, xxxvi. 677 (1909). Un- 
fortunately a co-type specimen, viz. Parry, no. 164, collected in 1874, 
has perfectly smooth nutlets. Evidently the character has no spe- 
cifie value in this genus, since the large-flowered plant (var. lepida) 
Shows the same variation, and since herbarium material seems to 
indicate that the smooth- and rough-fruited forms grow intermingled. 
F urthermore, if one maintains the rough-fruited form of the small- 
flowered plant as a species (E. muricata) we need yet another species 
for the rough-fruited form of the large-flowered plant. 
