52 Contributions from the Gray Herbarium 
which, it seems to me, is extremely doubtful. Dr. Rydberg has 
called attention to the errors in Brand’s work, Bull. Torr. Club xl. 
466 (1913) as regards some of the species of the Rocky Mountains. 
He is undoubtedly correct in his surmise that Brand’s misinter- 
pretations have originated in his inability to study the types of 
species concerned. Botanists, however, it occurs to me, will view 
with great charity errors arising from lack of data of this character, 
since it is a disadvantage under which all labor at times, and 
because of which all err. Accordingly, the criticism ‘“ He made 
definite pronunciations as to species he had never seen, and made 
synonyms from mere guesses ”’ will seem to many to be, if not an 
unjust remark, at least an unwise one, which may too easily serve 
as a boomerang for the person who first launches it. But to return 
to Brand’s treatment of the plants we have in mind. In the first 
place he seems to have missed completely one of the outstanding 
characteristics of G. densifolia, namely the woody character of the 
base and of the lower portions of the stems. His key character by 
which he separates this species from all the others is ‘‘ Tubus 
corollae calyce duplo vel triplo longior,”’ a character which is true 
enough but which applies also to specimens by Douglas of G. vir- 
gata in this herbarium from the Herb. Soc. Hort. Lon. and which, 
without doubt rightfully, purport to be a part of the material upon 
which G. virgata was based. The use by Brand of this corolla- 
character caused him to describe a variety lanata which he based 
on Heller no. 6753 from Monterey County, and which in point of 
fact is an exact duplicate of Douglas’ material of G. virgata prob- 
ably from the same region since he made his headquarters at 
Monterey during his stay in California. The next species Brand 
considers is G. Wilcoxii which he distinguishes by the character 
‘‘Semina sub aqua immutata.” Unfortunately mature seeds of 
type and co-type material have always developed mucilaginous 
spiricles in water every time I have tried the experiment. Brand 
gives no other character to distinguish this plant from G. filifolia 
and I have been unable to find any. His treatment of the latter is 
proper it seems to me but he fails to use in his key the strongest 
character of this plant, and the one upon which Dr. Gray placed 
greatest stress, namely the small anthers. The species certainly 
merges in California with the var. floccosa of G. virgata but never- ~ 
theless it is usually distinct enough even there and is the only 
