Macbride — Certain Borraginaceae 45 
ingly he considered C. cycloptera a good species. However, a study 
of the ample material in the Gray Herbarium seems to prove con- 
clusively that it is, at best, only a geographical variety of C. ptero- 
carya. In the first place, the ventral face of the nutlets may or 
may not be smooth in either of the proposed species. Secondly, 
all of the nutlets may be winged and yet the wings not extend 
across the base, as for example in the plants collected at Grand 
Junction, Colorado, by Alice Eastwood. When one considers the 
fact that the ventral faces of these winged nutlets are rough, one is 
puzzled as to whether the plants are more nearly related to C. 
pterocarya or to C. cycloptera. However, it must be noted that it 
is only the southwestern material that can be referred to C. cyclop- 
tera. It seems advisable, therefore, to consider C. cycloptera as a 
variety of C. pterocarya and to include in this variety all specimens 
that have four winged nutlets, irrespective of whether the wing 
extends across the base. Although the species ranges from Wash- 
ington to Utah and southern California, the variety apparently 
largely replaces it, in the interior of the Southwest. 
Cryptantha filiformifolia, spec. nov., humilis, 5-10 cm. alta, non 
vel vix ramosa cum pilis patentibus hispida; foliis fere filiformi us 
0.5-3 cm. longis raro 1 mm. latis; cymis brevibus circa 1.5 em. 
longis 2-3-radiatis, tal ch fructiferis densifloris; floribus minimis; 
— fructiferi laciniis 1 mm. longis; nu uculis (4) o ovato-trigonis 
a 5 mm. longis dorso muriculatis, omy ventrali albido fere ad 
soot dilatato at excavato. — Mexico: Alamos, Sonora, March 
26—April 8, 1890, Palmer, no. 397 eae ‘Gray Herb. 7 and Feb. 2; 
1899, Goldman, no. 308 (U. S. Nat. Herb. i Cape St. Lucas, ete., 
wer California, Aug. 1859-Jan. 1860, J. Xantus, no. 76; 
Guaymas, 1890, Palmer, no. 169 ? a 
Vasey and Rose, in their report on Palmer’s collections from La 
Paz, Lower California, Contrib. U. 8. Nat. Herb. i. 73 (1890), refer 
his no. 111 from that station to Krynitzkia micromeres Gray, with 
the remark ‘“ This differs somewhat from the northern forms of this 
species but it seems to be the same as Xantus’s no. 76, made a 
part of this species by Gray.” I have not seen Dr. Palmer’s 
specimen but it is evidently C. filiformifolia. Xantus’s specimen is 
only a scrap and it is not surprising that Dr. Gray referred it to his 
species; but he based his description on the Californian material. 
In 1891 Dr. Rose (1. c. 107) listed what I have taken as the type of 
my species as K. micromeres Gray without other comment than, 
