* 
Macbride — Notes on the Hydrophyllaceae 43 
Smiley in their altogether admirable revision of Eriodictyon in Bot. 
Gaz. Ix. 115-133 (1915) have omitted N. Parryi from their treat- 
ment but have referred to it as follows: “ Nama Parryi Gray 
agrees with typical Eriodictyon in seed character and essentially in 
fruit and perhaps should be placed here rather than in Nama, but it 
is an ill-scented herbaceous perennial of a totally different habit 
from true Eriodictyon and at least worthy of subgeneric distinc- 
tion.”’ It appears then that this plant is a misfit in either Nama or 
Eriodictyon and it seems to me that it is far preferable to consider 
it as representing a monotypic genus distinct from both genera. 
Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that the unique aspect is the 
most obvious argument against referring the plant to either Nama 
or Eriodictyon, technical and slight but constant differences are not 
lacking. Turricula differs from Nama in the presence of longi- 
tudinal striations on the seeds and in the undulate-dentate leaves 
and from Eriodictyon (to which genus, as shown above, Greene, 
Hall, and Abrams and Smiley either refer it or ally it) in the her- 
baceous stem, the submembranaceous capsule and the naked 
stamens. Finally, in the case of Eriodictyon particularly, the inclu- 
sion there of 7. Parryi destroys the now perfect homogeneity of 
that group. 
Nama HuMiFUsUM Brand, Beitrige Hydrophyll. 9 (1911). Dr. 
Gray included in his species (based originally upon northern 
Mexican material) specimens from California and it did not occur 
to any one that these represented a species distinct from the type 
of N. stenocarpum until Brand proposed for them the name N. 
humifusum. Brand stated that the unequal stamens of N. steno- 
carpum are unappendaged; that those of NV. humzfusum are equal 
and appendaged at base. These points of difference are minute 
but at first glance apparently of specific value. Upon investiga- 
tion, however, it is seen that Brand has in part mistaken and in 
part misconstrued the facts in the case. In the first place the 
stamens are somewhat unequal in both Mexican and Californian 
material including that by Dr. Hasse, the original collection of 
N. humifusum. Secondly the stamens in reality are appendaged 
in both forms, the apparently unappendaged condition of N.- 
stenocarpum being due to the fact that the filaments are attached 
to the corolla as far as the appendage extends which in turn is not 
free even at the tip. The adnate portion of the filament, therefore, 
