b 1 [/^ , w'V 
*>'>-> 
Aj 
Plants from J. C. Kelson. 
4662, I should say Potaraogeton foliosus Raf. 35ie glands at the 
bases of thd leaves which should be present in P. pus i Hup are 
lacking and the fruit seems to be that of P» folioWs . ^ 
Vi 
4669. Digita;na sanguinolis ( L. ) Scop. Note the bearded nodes and 
especialljr thr spikelets. 
4762. Luzula glabratOL ( Hoppe ) Besv. according to ous material 
arranged by Pernald. L. divaricato -as represented here is 
strictly Californian. 
4177. Polygonum aviculare L. 
4797. Biscid; should be Sp^gula sativa all right. 
4477. Sp^gulo arvensis L. note the white papillate seeds, 
4825. Hot Brymocallis . I should call it a stunted specimen of 
Petentilla norvegica L. 
4404. Geranixim carolinianum L. 
4457. " dissectum L. 
4368. Sidalcea oregana (Nutt.) Gray is the best I can do with this. 
A similar plant was long ago labelled ”S. oregana ?" by Pr. Gray, 
no one seems to have placed it more definitely. The small 
flowers suggest S. Nelsoniana but the very pubescent calyx and 
reticulate carpers seem to remove it from that species. Good 
job for you to work out the relationship of these forms. 
4782. Why not a small specimen of Hpilobi^^m gland ulosum Lehm., var. 
perplexans (Trel.) Pernald? 
4622. Haven't you, to use a seasonable metaphor, got your signals 
mixed on these mints? This seems to me Mentha rotundif olip - ( L. ) 
Huds. while your no. 1869 sent out under that name, I should 
call M. alopecuroldes . 
4800. The correct name for this species appears to be Magus japonicus 
(Thunb.) Ktze., Thunberg' s publication antedating Loureiro's, 
4778 + 4816 Why notMimulus peduncularis Dougl.? Tills species wtis list- 
ed from sands of the Columbia River by Gray in the Synoptical 
Flora, M. f lor i bund us is -d-ovmey-hairy not merely viscid. 
4836. Better material might show this to be Arctium nemorosum Lejeune^ 
but May2,be A. minus is safer^ pending proof. 
