
Macbride — Certain North American Umbelliferae 33 
Tauschia drudeophytoides, nom. nov. Museniopsis arguta Rose, 
Contrib. U. S. Nat. Herb. viii. 336 (1905), not Tauschia argula 
(T. & G.) Macbr. 
Tauschia pubescens (Coult. & Rose), comb. nov. Museniopsis 
cens Coult. & Rose, Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci. i. 134 (1900). 
Tauschia scabrella (Coult. & Rose), comb. nov. Museniopsis 
scabrella Coult. & Rose, Contrib. U.S. Nat. Herb. iii. 304 (1895). 
Tauschia guatemalensis (Coult. & Rose), comb. nov. Donnell- 
smithia guatemalensis Coult. & Rose, Bot. Gaz. xv. 15 (1890). 
Anceuica arcuta Nutt. in Torr. & Gray Fi. i. 620 (1840). 
When Watson described A. Lyallii, Proc. Am. Acad. xvii. 374 
(1882), he indicated A. arguta among the species he considered 
most closely related. Unfortunately this plant has remained un- 
known to the present day except for the type preserved in the 
Torrey Herbarium. Coulter & Rose, after two examinations of 
Nuttall’s specimen stated, Contrib. U. S. Nat. Herb. vii. 157 
(1900), ‘A. arguta is different from A. genuflexa. It seems much 
nearer A. lyallii, to which we were once constrained to refer it. 
It grows at so much lower elevations, however, that it seems impos- 
sible to consider the two identical.” Referring to the key to the 
ag of Angelica, 1. c. 153, one finds these species contrasted 
us: 
Oe ee eee Pe Oey ye vos ae eh ee see eee . A, lyallii.” 
A genuine difference would seem possibly to exist here especially 
when one considers the fact, mentioned by Coulter & Rose in the 
note quoted above, that A. arguta was secured from a low eleva- 
tion while A. Lyallii has been known as a plant of the mountains. 
Accordingly when I received specimens from J. C. Nelson collected 
at Salem, Oregon “ at less than 200 ft. elevation ” I felt that his 
“inference that he had rediscovered “ the long-lost A. arguta, which 
Nuttall collected on Sauvies Island and which no one has been 
able to find since ” would doubtless prove true. But upon exami- 
nation of the abundant material at hand of A. Lyallit, much of it 
representing collections cited by Coulter & Rose, I find that the 
characters which they assign to A. arguta are exhibited by speci- 
mens which they themselves have referred to A. Lyallit. Thus 
the fruits of Henderson, no. 2666 and Sandberg, no. 393 often 
come within the measurements assigned to those of A. argula, 
