90 
24. CCELOPLEURUM Ledeb. FI. Ross. ii. 361. — Stout 
glabrous sea-coast perennials (somewhat puberulent in the inflores- 
cence), with 2 to 3-ternate leaves on very large inflated petioles, 
few-leaved deciduous involucre,' involucels of numerous small 
linear-lanceolate bractlets (sometimes conspicuous or even like the 
leaves), and greenish-white flowers jn many-rayed umbels. 
This genus is referred to Archangelica bv Bentham & Hooker, which 
genus we have included an^Qv Angelica ®, and in the same connection restor- 
ed Ccelopleurum’^ to generic rank. It differs from Angelica in the fact that 
all the ribs are very prominently thick and corky, and that the laterals are 
not winged, although in C. maritimum they are broader than the dorsals. 
The fruit is not at all dorsally flattened, the flattening being lateral, if any, 
as in Ligusticum. The seed is soon loose in the pericarp, the oil-tubes 
adhering to it. . This fact, taken in connection with the very characteristic 
ribs, serves to distinguish this genus from any Angelica, to which genus it 
is nearly allied though Ccelopleurum maritimum and Angelica pinnata, 
1. C. Gmelini Ledeb. 1. c. Stem 1 to 3 feet high: leaflets 
ovate (with acute or obtuse base), acute, irregularly cut-serrate, 
2 to 25 ^ inches long, 1 to inches broad: rays 1 to 1]^ inches 
long; pedicels 3 to 4 lines long: fruit globose to oblong, 2 to 3i^ 
lines long, with ribs all nearly equal, and seed-face plane. (Fig. 
95 .) — Archmtgelica Gmelini DC. 
Eocky coasts, Massachusetts Bay {Morong), Isles of Shoals (Canby), 
Shore of St. Lawrence {Pringle), coast of Gaspe {Macoun), Labrador 
{Allen, Mann), to Greenland; also Vancouver Island {Macoun), Queen 
Charlotte Islands {Dawson), to Alaska {Rothrock, Harrington dt White)', 
besides reported stations of the earlier collectors. 
This species very likely occurs on the coast of Washington Territory 
and Oregon, but we have as yet seen no specimens. So far as known it is 
not found in the interior, the so-called Archangelica Gmelini of the Eocky 
Mountains (so far as seen) being Selinum Grayi. The plant from “Alpine 
region of White Mts. {Oakes),” in the Gray and Toi’rey herbaria, is probably 
something else, but the specimens are much too young to determine. 
Hall & Harbour 219 from the Colorado mountains, and Watson 459 from 
the Uintas are the same, and have been doubtfully referred to this species, 
but in the absence of fruit it is impossible to determine the relationship, 
and the range is presumptive evidence against this refei'ence. They may 
as well be sovoq Angelica. Archangelica peregrina Nutt., quoted by Torrey 
& Gray as a synonym of Archangelica Gmelini DC , is Angelica genuflexa 
Nutt. In Pringle’s distiibution from Temiscouata, Canada (rocky shore of 
tho St. Lawi'ence), the sheet in J. Donnell Smith’s herbarium contains de- 
6 Botanical Gazette, xii. 60. 7 L. c, ji. 62. 
