Macbride — Reclassified or new Compositae 49 
which I have not seen but which in all probability is merely a 
state of FE. lanosum Gray. 
¥ Monotorra Masor DC., var. gracilens (Gray), comb. nov. M. 
gracilens Gray, Proc. Am. Acad. xix. 20 (1883). 
In Univ. Cal. Publ. Bot. iii. 176 (1907) Hall wrote ‘‘ M. graci- 
lens Gray, which should be considered only a small-flowered variety 
of M. major” and Rydberg in the N. A. Fl. xxxiv. 82 (1915) stated 
in regard to M. gracilens, ‘“‘ Characters as given for M. major (of 
which this is perhaps a geographic race), except that the whole 
plant is more slender and the heads and floral organs smaller.’ I 
concur in these observations and accordingly am treating this 
plant as a variety of the form named first. 
Dyssodia Palmeri (Greenm.), comb. nov. Urbinella Palmeri 
Greenm. Proc. Am. Acad. xxxix. 117 (1903). 
Since Dr. Greenman proposed the genus Urbinella, |. ¢., dis- 
tinguishing it from Dyssodia and Hymenatherum by the character 
of the pappus and the involucre, Dr. Robinson in the Proc. Am. 
Acad. xlix. 506 (1913) has called attention to the advisability of 
recognizing here a single genus as has been done by Hoffman. This 
action necessitates the suppression of Urbinella since it is based on 
characters which are not recognized as possessing generic value. 
Dr. Rydberg in his treatment in the N. A. Fl. xxxiv. 171 (1915) has 
maintained Greenman’s genus but he also recognizes Hymenathe- 
rum (i.e. Thymophylla), and several other genera, which indeed 
seems to be logical because the acceptance of Urbinella or any 
particular one of the segregate genera calls for the recognition of 
many of the others since the characters by which they may be dis- 
tinguished are equally strong. But what is gained, either from a 
purely scientific standpoint of classification for its own sake or 
from a more liberal view that takes into account practicability and 
convenience in the method of classification followed, by dividing 
& natural entity into numerous genera which may be distinguished 
with difficulty ?_ There would appear to be no advantage; never= 
theless the treatment of this group in the North American Flora 
is symptomatic of cod this method of classification. 
conettricaria suffruticosa (L.), comb. nov. Tanacetum_suffruti- 
m L. Sp. Pl. ii. $43 (1753). T. multiflorum Thunb. Prod. FI. 
Cap li. 147 (1800). M. maiisere (Thunb.) Fenzl in Harv. & 
rs 
N. A. Fl. xxxiv. 233 (1916 
