42 Contributions from the Gray Herbarium 
he ep te CARACASANA HBK., var. viscosa (Donn. Sm.), 
comb. n W.caracasana HBK. forma viscosa Donn. Sm. Enum 
Pl. Gantetnt iv. 107 (1895); Brand, Paanconreich: iv. 251. 137 
(1913). W. Kunthii Choisy, var. viscosa (Donn. Sm.) Brand, I. ¢. 
The typical form of this plant seems to be confined to extreme 
northern South America. The above variety differs in no way 
except in its much greater viscosity. It is the most common form 
in Mexico where two other variants occur, the variety calycina 
Brand, which is similar to the variety viscosa except for the elon- 
-gate sepals, and the variety macrophylla (C. & 8.) Brand character- 
ized by the very sericeous scarcely at all glandular inflorescence. 
The latter variety has the long sepals of the variety calycina. 
Brand maintains W. Kunthii Choisy as distinct from W. cara- 
casana HBK. on its greater style-length. This is a phenomenon 
which is evidently an individual variation and of no value for the 
discrimination of species. The best means of distinction between 
these species is the setose-hispid inflorescence of W. Kunthii, the 
character emphasized by Choisy. The species apparently merge 
but on the whole may be distinguished readily. 
cula, gen. nov. Capsula submembranacea ovoideo-globosa 
longitudine fere calycis. Semina brunneo-nigra, perlucentia, 
angulata, minutissime rugosis 3 longitudinem et transverse. 
Calyx 5-partitus ad basin. Corolla infundibullformi-tubiformis. 
Stamina nuda inclusa inaequalia, basi anguste alata cum tubo 
corollae coalita. Styli duo calyce longiores, corolla breviores, 
inferne barbati.— Herbae perennes, magnae, simplex, saepius 
18 dm. altae. Folia alterna, angusta, Geutatd ghia. Flores 
gy-tne in thyrso longo terminali aia oe 
urricula Parryi (Gray), comb. Nam a Parryi Gray in 
Piielaci & Wats. Bot. ore i. 621 (1876). ai claice Parryi (Gray) 
Greene, Pitt. ii. 22 (1889). 
The proper disposition of this plant has long been a subject of 
controversy. Greene in transferring N. Parryi to Eriodictyon, |. ¢., 
wrote: ‘“ If this plant ought to be a Nama the whole genus Erio- 
dictyon should go with it.’’. Brand, however, in his recent treat- 
ment of the Hydrophyllaceae, Pflanzenreich iv. 251. 160 (1913) 
retains the species in Nama without comment. But the discrimi- 
nating student of California botany, Dr. Hall, has accepted 
Greene’s viewpoint in regarding N. Parryi as an Eriodictyon, cf. 
Univ. Cal. Publ. Bot. i. 106 (1902), and more recently Abrams and 
