Macbride — Notes on the Hydrophyllaceae 31 
var, eremophila (Greene), comb. nov. P. eremophila Greene, 
Pitt. v. 20 (1902). P. ramosissima Dougl., forma decumbens 
(Greene) Brand, in part. — Central Sierra Nevada of California 
to western Idaho and Washington. —Ipano: Quartzburg, July 
25, 1892, Mulford. Nrvapa: Hunter Greek riod Washoe Co., 
Aug. 15, 1908, Dinsmore, no. 1788; Verdi, July 24, 1912, Heller, 
no. 10605; Humboldt Canyon, Humboldt Co., July 31, 1912, 
Heller, no. 10624; Carson City, 1865, Anderson, no. 198; King’s 
Cafion, Ormsby Co., June 30, 1902, Baker, no. 1198; also Eagle 
Valley, no. 1091; East Humboldt Mts., Aug., 1865, Watson, no. 
874; Jarbidge, Elko Co. , July 10, 1912, Nelson & Macbride, no. 
2010; also Gold Creek, no. 2127. CALIFORNIA: Sierra Co., 1874, 
Lemmon; Yosemit te Valley, July 6, 1911, Abrams, no. 4644: Sum 
mit Pass, itidorddo Co., Aug. 4, 1915, Heller, no. 12136; Denier 
Pass, Nevada Co., July 27, 1903, Heller, no. 7032: 1869, Bolander, 
no. 4910. WASHINGTON: Desert Well, ‘south of Big Springs, July 
5, 1894, Leiberg, no. 390. 
PHACELIA THERMALIS Greene, Eryth. ui. 66 (1895). P. firmo- 
.marginata A. Nels. Bot. Gaz. liv. 143 (1912) is to be included in 
this species. The range of P. thermalis is thus extended from eastern 
Oregon to southwestern Idaho. The small flowers and short style 
distinguish it at once from the otherwise similar P. ciliata Benth. 
of California. 
PHACELIA MAGELLANICA (Lam.) Cov., Contrib. U. 8. Nat. Herb. 
iv. 159 (1893). The plant to which this specific name was first 
given was collected at the Straits of Magellan before the close of 
the eighteenth century. It was destined to remain in obscurity, 
however, until 1893 when Coville, |. c., called attention to the fact 
that the Hydrophyllum magellanicum of South America was a 
species of Phacelia very closely related if not identical to P. leu- 
cophylla Torr., a well-known and widely distributed plant of the 
Rocky Mountains. Several “ floras’’ purporting to “ cover ”’ 
territory, at least a portion of which is within the range of Torrey’s 
species, have appeared since Coville launched his suggestion, but 
the authors of these books have continued to maintain P. leuco- 
phylla and the closely allied P. heterophylla. It would appear 
therefore that American botanists have either ignored Coville’s 
theory or have regarded the South American plant as specifically 
distinct from the North American, a position which has been 
rigorously challenged by Brand in his recent revision of the genus. 
American systematists have generally regarded the group to which 
