FLORA OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. 
INTRODUCTION. 
The principal aim of the author in this work is to present a sum- 
mary of our present knowledge of the vascular plants of Washington 
and to call attention to the more important problems, both taxonomic 
and ecological, which have become disclosed. 
Simple kevs to the genera and species are inserted so as to give 
the work a wider usefulness. 
The nomenclature aims to follow the recently proposed Philadel- 
phia Code. In accordance with the rules of this code in the matter of 
generic names, it is not improbable that several of those here used 
will have to be changed when the necessary bibliographical researches 
have been made. As the important synonomy is here given with 
each species, there will be little difficulty in coordinating the name 
adopted with any other commonly used heretofore, or which may be 
proposed hereafter. 
As regards the limitation of species the author has in the main 
adopted © rather conservative attitude. Some of the recently pro- 
posed species seem well founded even if the differences are slight. 
In other cases the species or subspecies seem to be based on too slight 
characters and are therefore unworthy of nomenclatorial recogni- 
tion. As one’s acceptance or rejection of a proposed species depends 
in part on personal judgment, and in part on the evidence available, 
attention is, in nearly all cases, called to those which the author 
rejects. In all such cases additional material, as well as careful field 
notes, is desirable for the better understanding of the forms in 
question. 
In the matter of the tendency common at present to raise to 
generic rank what have heretofore been considered subgenera, the 
writer likewise takes a conservative attitude. It is at least doubtful 
if the very large number of new names thus occasioned does not more 
than counterbalance any advantage argued in favor of the practice. 
Certainly the carrying of the practice to such an extreme that genera 
are considered to be made up of species of similar habit, rather than 
to be based on structural characters, seems inadvisable. Neither does 
it impress one as a valid argument that, because in some extremely 
natural families the genera must perforce be based on very slight 
9 
