VOL. I.] Recent Literature. 287 
importance the Californian collection of the Wilkes expedition; 
Gray’s account of the Plants of Fremont’s second expedition; 
the various papers of Drs. Gray and Watson, dealing with 
plants of the Pacific Coast, such as ‘‘ Characters of New Plants © 
of California and elsewhere principally of those collected by 
W. H. Brewer and H. N. Bolander in the State Geological 
Survey. Proc. Am. Acad, vii, 327-402,’ and ‘‘ vol. vi, 519-556,” 
as well as their numerous revisions of almost purely Pacific 
Coast genera; Alphonso Wood's Liliacee; Dr. Parry’s revisions 
of our genera Chorizanthe, Ceanothus, Arctostaphylos and Alnus; 
Prof. Trelease’s paper on Ceanothus; and many others, but 
his almost total neglect of the work of a man who was for 
a long series of years the best known botanist of the Pacific 
Coast is inexplicable. It can hardly be that a personal dislike has 
so warped his judgment that he can seriously consider the . 
papers of Dr. Kellogg, often of considerable length, scattered 
through the Proceedings of the California Academy, and de- 
scribing hundreds of species, of less importance, than for instance, 
Nos. 611, 612, 613.. The only evidence even of his existence 
furnished by this list is No. 618—Forest Trees of California—a 
paper written in popular style for the Report of the State Mineral- 
ogist. Even the paper in Bull. Cal. Acad., i, 128-151, giving a list 
of the species described by him, with explanatory notes, is passed 
over. 
It would be of interest also to know why the lists of Suksdorf’s 
Washington Plants, of Pringle’s Californian, of Marcus Jones’ from — 
California to Utah, Collier’s list of the Trees of Oregon, etc., were 
omitted, as until the completion of Gray’s Flora of North America 
they furnish almost all the available data concerning the distribu- 
tion of plants in some regions. It may be that being lists of plants 
offered for sale they are considered of no importance, but if so why 
was Gerald McCarthy’s similar list of a region in which the flora 
is very well known, included ? 
Not being so familiar with the literature of eastern botany, the 
whether or not the lists for those regions are so 
be desired as the 
: ges K. B. 
writer cannot judge 
hopelessly muddled and leave so very much to 
western ones certainly do. 
