Macbride — New or otherwise interesting Liliaceae 7 
bilense. The presence of these forms would make a treatment of 
the group which would recognize one species and several varieties 
seem not unplausible but until more is known of these apparently 
intermediate plants the species indicated above may conveniently 
be recognized. 
_ _ Allium Rydbergii, nom. nov. A. fibrosum Rydb. Bull. Torr. 
Club, xxiv. 188 (1897), not A. fibrosum Regel, Act. Hort. Petrop. 
x. 322 (1887). 
This excellent species bears superficial resemblance to A. cana- 
dense but, as shown by the crested capsule, is most nearly related 
to A. Geyeri from which it is nicely distinct by virtue of the obtuse 
perianth segments and the bulbet-bearing umbels. 
Allium jubatum, nom. nov. A. cristatum Boiss. Fl. Or. v. 237 
(1884), not A. cristatum Wats. Proc. Am. Acad. xiv. 232 (1879). 
Allium cristatum Wats., a valid species of North America, is 
not cited in the Index Kewensis. 
Bioomerta Kellogg, Proc. Cal. Acad. ii. 11 (1863). Muilla 
Wats. Proc. Am. Acad. xiv. 215 & 235 (1879). 
When Watson described his genus, I. c., he had before him the 
single species M. maritima (Torr.) Wats., a several-leaved plant 
with greenish-white flowers borne on unarticulated pedicels and 
with filiform filaments. This plant could scarcely be considered 
Congeneric with the monophyllic Bloomeria aurea which has yellow 
flowers, jointed pedicels and long filaments winged toward the base. 
Since then, however, additional species have been discovered which 
show conclusively, it seems to me, that these plants are really con- 
Seneric and that accordingly Muilla should become sunk in Bloom- 
erta, the earlier name. In 1887 and 1888 Greene described two 
Species of Muilla (M. transmontana and M. coronata, Pitt. i. 3 
and 165) which he distinguished primarily from the original species 
M - maritima by the petaloid filaments, “ their margins meeting at 
base +. . forming a shallow . . . cup around the ovary.” Now 
this is essentially true in the case of Bloomeria aurea and indeed 
_ Engler, Pflanzenf. ii. Abt. 5: 57 (1887), found no other character 
___ by which to distinguish Bloomeria and Muilla but this sufficed as 
filaments of M. maritima, the only species known to him, are 
very narrow. We are foreed to discard, then, the character of the 
.oe ts as possessing value here for purposes of generic defini- 
. but it is to be noted that M. transmontana Greene (with 

