- 4 
I have seen a poor photo of the type and four of Jones' specimens 
as follows: Aurum, Nevada flowers only 
Schelbourne discussed above 
Spruoemnnt, Nevada fruit but nothing for disection 
Mt• Ibapah No fruit or flowers, only a root and a few 
small leaves* 
These all seem to agree with the descriptions of Gray, Jones and 
Rydberg in leaf characters and the Jorges plants have a somewhat 
different pubescence than my number 5018* However I hesitate to 
draw any conclusions from such a small amount of scrappy material* 
Have Jones and Jepson slipped in citing the Schelbour|)e specimen 
and Jepson in citing the Charleston Mt* material? 
Have Gray, Jones and Rydberg been wrong in describing the 
structure of ohe xpia septum? This doesn’t seem reasonable. 
Or Is the pod structure of less importance that it is given in 
treatments of Astragalus? 
If uhe pod structure ifi as fixed and as important as it is 
usually considered it seems to me that a new subgenus should be 
created for my 5^18 and for A. platytropis^if Gray, Jones and Rydberg 
have been wrong. Whatever is done about A. platytropis it seems to 
me that 5^18 should be considered a new species* This on account of 
its isolation and the difference in leaflet number and size and the 
difference in pubescence* I have enough material to show that this 
Charleston Mt. plant is breeding true. 
B 
