345 
M econo p sis and Cat hear iia . 
3 . Meconopsis crassifolia, Benth. Caules a basi ramosi ; folia satis 
numerosa carnosula radicalia subpersistentia caulina internodis longiora ; 
capsula late turbinata saepissime valvis 6 vel pluribus apice tantum brevis- 
sime aperta (PL XXIV, Fig. io). Benth. in Trans. Hort. Soc., ser. II, 
i. 408 (1835); Torr. & Gray, FI. N. Amer., i. 61 (1838); Hook. & Arn., 
Bot. Beechey Voy., 330 (1840). Stylophorum crassifolium , Steud., Nomencl, 
ed. 2, ii. 650 (1841). Papaver crassifolium , Greene, Man. Bot. San Francisc. 
Bay, 9 (1894). P. heterophyllum , var. crassifolium , Jepson, FI. West Mid. 
Calif., 209 (1901). 
America boreali-occidentalis. California ; in pratis, dumetis 
agrisque. 
Doubtfully separable from the preceding. 
The Anomalae constitute a natural group, distinguished from all other groups 
in being not only monocarpic but annual, and in having the petals marked by a dark 
basal blotch ; in the other known species the petals are concolorous. The foliage 
is more deeply divided than in any group except the Bellae. These two groups, 
the Bellae and the Anomalae, further agree in that the apices of the valves by which 
the capsules dehisce do not quite extend to the base of the style, and so leave the 
vertex of the capsule solid. In the Bellae the solid portion surrounding the base 
of the style is convex and is not very extensive. In the Anomalae , however, this 
solid part of the capsule is as wide as the capsule itself, is almost flat, and resembles 
the disk of a true Papaver except in being astigmatic. This flattened vertex, 
however, is hardly a disk in the sense of the term as used in the case of a Papaver 
like P. somniferum or P. dubium , because the margin ends at, but does not 
project beyond, the margins of the valves. 
The question whether there are more species than one in the group Anomalae 
has been often discussed but has not been satisfactorily settled. An examination 
of the material in the herbarium at Kew shows that there are certainly two forms 
corresponding more or less closely to the types of Bentham’s two species. The 
remarks of such competent authorities as Greene and Jepson indicate that in 
the field also two forms are more or less distinguishable. But how far the forms 
distinguished by Greene and Jepson correspond to the species defined by Bentham, 
and which form as recognized in the field in California corresponds with either name 
given by Bentham, is not so clear as could be wished. The difficulty was explained 
by Greene in 1891 (Flor. Francisc. 281) at which time he was doubtful whether 
his two forms represented more than states of one species differing in facies in 
consequence of their environment. By 1894 Greene had become satisfied (Bot. San 
Francisc. Bay, 9) that, of the two forms recognized by him, the one from wooded slopes 
corresponds to Bentham’s M. heterophylla , the one from dry fields to M. crassifolia. 
Jepson in 1901 (Flor. West Mid. Calif. 209) has followed Greene’s discrimination of 
1894, though he treats the two forms as merely varieties of one species. Unfortunately 
with the specimens at Kew which agree with the type of M. heterophylla we have 
in no instance any note as to habitat, while of the specimens that agree with 
M. crassifolia some are from grassy banks, some from shaded canons, some from 
