88 feecent Literature. [ ZOE 
flora Franciscana. Partl. By Epwarp L. GREENE, Assistant 
Professor of Botany in the University of California, 128 pp. San 
Francisco, 1891. The title of this work is somewhat of a misno- 
mer, as it ranges over a district extending north and south from 
Cape Mendocino to Point Conception and from east to west the 
whole breadth of the State. 
The reasons usually given for the publication of ‘‘ Local Floras”’ 
are that they furnish more exact and fuller particulars concerning 
the localities and life history of plants than are usually given in 
works dealing with wider areas. In these respects the work is a 
distinct failure, scarcely any addition being made to the localities 
mentioned in the Botany of California—which is usually ignored— 
or any biological observation made that has not been already made 
public by previous authors. . 
The author's motto seems to be “ change,” and especially such 
change as will admit of placing his name after as many species as 
possible. The logic of these changes is past finding out. Eremo- 
carpus is certainly quite as distinct from Croton as Cerasus and 
Amygdalus from Prunus; Malus from Pyrus, etc., and if Hosackia 
is to be reduced to Lotus, Horkelia to Potentilla and Limnanthes to 
Fleerkea, by what rule is he able to keep Heteromeles distinct 
from Photinia, ‘‘ Alsinella” from Arenaria, or ‘‘ Tissa’’ from Sper- 
“gula? 
In accordance with his well-known tendencies he inflates the 
genera with numerous species, either of his own making or from 
half-forgotten synonymy. Trifolium, for instance, is credited with 
forty-three, and Lupinus with forty-eight species in Central Cali- 
fornia! As Dr, Gray said on noticing in the American Journal 
of Science the first number of Pittonia: “ The various new species 
of Trifolium, etc. * * * may be safely left to the final judg- 
ment of competent botanists. Professor Greene’s judgment and 
ours are widely divergent,” but the author’s habit of uniting genera. 
haphazard and renaming all the species with identical names in the 
absence of positive knowledge of their validity is a serious evil. 
The aphorism “ once a Synonym always a synonym”’ may apply 
to the naming of new species, but it is rather straining matters to 
make the rule retroactive. 
The day which sees botanical names so well established as to be 
able to dispense with their authorities will be a very welcome one. 
