The description in the following link about C. oygona is telling. These plants have nutlets with scalloped wing margins. Normally this, through key in TJM1 and perhaps TJM2 this would carry you to C. pterocarya. The only real difference is the described corolla size. C. pterocarya was also in this region having noted smaller corollas and slightly earlier phenology. Michael Simpson's images of the type specimen might indicate another interpretation. You may comment as you wish. http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/plants/cryptantha/pdfs/Johnston1925-Cryptantha_utahensis-49-50-Boraginac.pdf
The description in the following link about C. oygona is telling. These plants have nutlets with scalloped wing margins. Normally this, through key in TJM1 and perhaps TJM2 this would carry you to C. pterocarya. The only real difference is the described corolla size. C. pterocarya was also in this region having noted smaller corollas and slightly earlier phenology. Michael Simpson's images of the type specimen might indicate another interpretation. You may comment as you wish. http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/plants/cryptantha/pdfs/Johnston1925-Cryptantha_utahensis-49-50-Boraginac.pdf
The description in the following link about C. oygona is telling. These plants have nutlets with scalloped wing margins. Normally this, through key in TJM1 and perhaps TJM2 this would carry you to C. pterocarya. The only real difference is the described corolla size. C. pterocarya was also in this region having noted smaller corollas and slightly earlier phenology. Michael Simpson's images of the type specimen might indicate another interpretation. You may comment as you wish. http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/plants/cryptantha/pdfs/Johnston1925-Cryptantha_utahensis-49-50-Boraginac.pdf
The description in the following link about C. oygona is telling. These plants have nutlets with scalloped wing margins. Normally this, through key in TJM1 and perhaps TJM2 this would carry you to C. pterocarya. The only real difference is the described corolla size. C. pterocarya was also in this region having noted smaller corollas and slightly earlier phenology. Michael Simpson's images of the type specimen might indicate another interpretation. You may comment as you wish. http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/plants/cryptantha/pdfs/Johnston1925-Cryptantha_utahensis-49-50-Boraginac.pdf
The description in the following link about C. oygona is telling. These plants have nutlets with scalloped wing margins. Normally this, through key in TJM1 and perhaps TJM2 this would carry you to C. pterocarya. The only real difference is the described corolla size. C. pterocarya was also in this region having noted smaller corollas and slightly earlier phenology. Michael Simpson's images of the type specimen might indicate another interpretation. You may comment as you wish. http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/plants/cryptantha/pdfs/Johnston1925-Cryptantha_utahensis-49-50-Boraginac.pdf
The description in the following link about C. oygona is telling. These plants have nutlets with scalloped wing margins. Normally this, through key in TJM1 and perhaps TJM2 this would carry you to C. pterocarya. The only real difference is the described corolla size. C. pterocarya was also in this region having noted smaller corollas and slightly earlier phenology. Michael Simpson's images of the type specimen might indicate another interpretation. You may comment as you wish. http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/plants/cryptantha/pdfs/Johnston1925-Cryptantha_utahensis-49-50-Boraginac.pdf
The description in the following link about C. oygona is telling. These plants have nutlets with scalloped wing margins. Normally this, through key in TJM1 and perhaps TJM2 this would carry you to C. pterocarya. The only real difference is the described corolla size. C. pterocarya was also in this region having noted smaller corollas and slightly earlier phenology. Michael Simpson's images of the type specimen might indicate another interpretation. You may comment as you wish. http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/plants/cryptantha/pdfs/Johnston1925-Cryptantha_utahensis-49-50-Boraginac.pdf
