80 . Rhodora [May 
At the close of his paper Nordstedt mentions three monographs 
which may be used for bases in their respective sections; for practical 
work all three are now the standards, but to those who are worshipers 
of priority in itself, rather than as far as it may be the most useful 
means to an end, it will be rather a shock to find that these mono- 
graphs date from 1888, 1893 and 1900 respectively: Gomont, Mono- 
graphie des Oscillariées, 1893, and Bornet et Flahault, Revision des 
Nostocacées hétérocystées contenues dans les principaux herbiers 
de France, 1886-1888, have brought order where disorder reigned 
before; but as Nordstedt himself notes, they seldom recognize any 
species of which the authors have not examined authentic specimens; 
following each genus is a list of species inquirendae. Hirn, Mono- 
graphie und Iconographie der Oedogoniaceen, 1900, is a more 
complete work, covering practically all known species, with full 
illustrations. It should be added that in the case of the heterocysted 
nostocs, Bornet and Flahault have since 1888, as a consequence of the 
examination of original specimens before unseen, published a paper 
changing in some few instances the names used in the Revision. 
What the status of these later names would be in case of the Revision 
being accepted as the beginning of nomenclature might be an inter- 
esting question. j 
In conclusion; the fact that Nordstedt recommends Ralfs as the 
starting point for the nomenclature of desmids is in itself a strong 
argument in favor of the plan, and a careful reading of his paper 
will prove quite convincing, it would seem, to any one who had not 
in some way prejudged the matter. It is likely that in regard to the 
other groups Nordstedt's suggestions, which are put forward as prop- 
ositions only and without evidence or argument, may meet with more 
opposition; if so, however, it is for their opponents to propose some- 
thing better. 
MALDEN, MASSACHUSETTS. 
