COMPOSITE. 341 



6. ASTER, Tourn. 

 1. Aster conspicuus, Lindl. 



Aster eonspicuus, Lindl. in Hook. PI, Bor.-Am. 2, p. 7, & in DC. Prodr. 5, p. 230 ; 

 Torr. & Gray, Fl. 2, p. 107 ; Hook. Lond. Jour. Bot. 6, p. 240. 



Hab. Between Spokane and Fort Colville, and elsewhere in 

 Oregon. Also, a dwarf state, in California, on ridges, said to have 

 been gathered near San Francisco, where this northern species would 

 not have been expected. [This form is evidently A. radulinus, Gray, 

 Proc. Am. Acad. 8, p. 388.] 



2. Aster Chamissonis, Gray, 



Aster Chile7isis, Nees, Ast. p. 123; DC. Prodr. 5, p. 245; Torr. & Gray, Fl. 2, p. 112. 



A. spectabilis? Hook. & Am. Bot. Beech. Voy. p. 146. 



A. Durandi, Durand & Hilgard in Pacif. R. R. Surv. 5, p. 8, sine char., vix Nutt. 



Hab. Near San Francisco, California; and on the lower part of the 

 Sacramento. — There is much doubt and confusion about the habitat 

 of the American plants of Hanke's collection. Several described as 

 Peruvian or Chilian prove to be Californian. This Aster Chilensis, not 

 found in Chili by any other traveller, is obviously one of the number. 

 [The name of A. Chamissonis is applied to this species in the Flora of 

 California, fried., A. Chilensis being a false name.] 



3. Aster Menziesii, Lindl. (Tab. 8.) 



Hab. Upper Sacramento River, California. — The specimen figured 

 answers well, we believe, to the original collected by Menzies, in Cal- 

 ifornia, according to the Banksian herbarium, or on the Northwest 

 Coast, according to that of Hooker. Another form, approaching A. fal- 

 catus, Lindl. (which is probably of the same species), was collected on 

 the lower part of the Sacramento. The species proves to have no 

 particular relationship to A. concolor. Even the pubescence is different, 

 and this is inconstant. 



86 



