State and Local Floras. 345 
unlikely that my very phrase used in reviewing one of what we all 
supposed to be one of Mr. Brandegee’s writings should be hurled 
back at me (although in an impossible application), by Mrs. Brande- 
gee. And this almost leads one to speculate on how many other 
supposed individuals may be included in the same family. 
N. L. BRITTON. 
And so our friend the editor of Zhe Torrey Bulletin was a war- 
rior aforetime, and no doubt bore back honorable wounds from 
many a bloody field. We congratulate him on his heroic deeds 
and the continuance of | 
‘* The stern joy which warriors feel 
In foemen worthy of their steel.” 
In regard to the grave accusations brought against Mrs. Brande- 
gee we are constrained to admit that they are too true. She is a 
woman, but pleads in extenuation of the damning fact, that she was 
in no way consulted about the matter. We are under the impression 
that among gentlemen the argumentum ad hominem is.considered 
to be extremely bad form, the argumentum ad mulierem is how- 
ever apparently admissible. 
The explanation ‘‘ that descriptive revisions of wide-spread — 
or papers containing descriptions of new species from wide areas’ 
were not intended to be included, is perfectly satisfactory to us, but — 
the feminine mind, as our old friend remarks, is illogical and unfair, 
and in spite of, our best efforts we have been unable to convince 
Mrs. Brandegee that such papers as “ No. 591, Catalogue of Plants 
Collected in Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona 
* * gto. pp. 404, 30 plates;’’ ‘‘No. 531, Descriptions of New 
Species and Genera of Plants in the Natural Order Composite, 
Collected in a Tour Across the Continent to the Pacific, a Residence 
in Oregon, and a visit to the Sandwich Islands and Upper Califor- 
ia,” etc., etc., do not contain “descriptions of new species from 
wide areas,” or that the account of Mimulus, ranging from the Aleu- 
tian Islands to Mexico, from the swamps of New England to Guada- 
lupe Islandin the Pacific Ocean, contained in ‘‘ No. 620,”’ is not as 
much a descriptive revision of a widespread genus as Dr. Parry’s 
Chorizanthe, Arctostaphylos or Alnus; Dr. Trelease’s Ceanothus, 
- or the numerous similar papers of Dr. Gray and Dr. Watson. We 
ourself were a little surprised to find that while Chapman’s Flora 
- of the Southern States, Coulter’s Manual of Rocky Mountain 
‘ 
