Macbride — New or otherwise interesting Plants 15 
Lomatium Raf. According to Art. 57 of the International Rules 
of Botanical Nomenclature, Coulter and Rose, Contrib. U.S. Nat. 
Herb. xii. 448 (1909), erred in following Jones’s rejection of this 
name because of the earlier Lomatia R.Br. This article reads, 
*“* When the difference between two names, especially between two 
generic names, lies in the termination, these names are to be re- 
garded as distinct even though differing by one letter only.” 
Peponia and Peponium are then cited as examples and these names 
are obviously analogous to those we are considering. It will be- 
come necessary, therefore, to transfer a number of species referred 
to Cogswellia Spreng. (revived by Jones to replace Lomatium) and 
in the course of determinative work the following have come to 
my notice. 
v Lomatium millefolium (Wats.), comb. nov. Peucedanum mille- 
folium Wats. Bot. King Surv. 129 (1871). P. Grayi Coult. & Rose, 
Bot. Gaz. xiii. 209 (1888). Cogswellia millefolia (Wats.) Jones, 
Contrib. W. Bot. xii. 35 (1908). : 
Lomatium Chandleri (Jones), comb. nov. Cogswellia Chandlert 
Jones, Contrib. W. Bot. xiii. 11 (1910). : 
“ Lomatium Nelsonianum, spec. nov., mediocriter robustum circa 
3.5 dm. altum; foliis subradicalibus late ovatis 2.5-3 dm. longis 
circa 1.5 dm. latis pinnatim vel subternatim decompositis, foliolis 
pinnatifidis, segmentis cuneatis versus apicem argute dentatis 
incisisque, supra fere glabris subtus minute hispidis imprimis in 
nervis; foliis caulinis inferioribus similibus sed brevioribus (circa 
1 dm. longis); umbellis multiradiatis; involucelli bracteis lineari- 
subulatis; pedicellis fructiferis minute pubescentibus; fructu fere 
apud L. Donnellii sed alis disco suboblongo paullo angustioribus ; 
vittis in valleculis semper 3.— Orecon: dry rocky hillside near 
Mule Creek, Curry Co., June 21, 1917, J. C. Nelson, no. 1419 
(TyPE, Gray Herb.). 
No described species of Lomatium is more closely related to this 
one than is L. Donnellii Coult. & Rose which may be di ' 
by its complete lack of pubescence, more narrowly winged fruits 
and more numerous (4-6) oil-tubes in the intervals. Moreover it 
seems to be confined to eastern Oregon and adjacent Idaho —a 
region noted for the very restricted ranges of the components of 
its flora. Furthermore the flora of southwestern veer Bn 
region from which L. Nelsonianum comes — is likewise known 
for its endemism. Accordingly there is little doubt but that the 
differences that exist between these two plants are to be consid 
