14 Rhodora [JANUARY 
In typography, as well as in the general form of presentation, it bears 
a considerable resemblance to the recently issued edition of Gray’s 
Manual, the chief differences being the more complete use of block 
keys, the introduction of a brief bibliographical reference after every 
accepted specific and varietal name — a feature of decided value — 
and by the failure to indicate introduced plants by any distinctive type 
or to emphasize by italics diagnostic traits of particular importance. 
There are furthermore no illustrations and no attempt has been 
made to indicate the correct pronunciation of the scientific names by 
marks of accentuation, nor is the derivation of generic names pointed 
out as in many floras. 
In the interpretation of specific limits the work appears to be fairly 
conservative, while in the matter of dividing large and traditional 
genera, as well as in the nomenclature, a middle course has been 
followed. ‘Thus, such genera as Polygonum, Astragalus, Oxalis, 
Euphorbia, and Cornus are retained in their customary broader sense, 
while Oenothera, Aplopappus, Aster, and several other large genera 
are divided. ‘This is, of course, a matter on which individual judg- 
ment is likely to vary rather widely and be considerably influenced 
by the particular species within the limits treated. More difficult to 
grasp is the nomenclatural plan of the work, though in the preface we 
are told that “the nomenclature, so far as practicable, is that adopted 
by the Vienna Congress.” It is quite true that considerable conces- 
sion has evidently been made to the international rules, and for this, 
most professional botanists and the majority of amateurs, who wish to 
be on an orthodox footing in regard to this matter, will be duly grateful. 
Thus, it is pleasant to see Luzula, Smilacina, Spiranthes, Arceutho- 
bium, Suaeda, Spergularia, Stellaria, Mamillaria, Liatris, etc., but the 
interspersing of other names like Roripa, Ratibida, Washingtonia, 
Parthenocissus, Covillea, and Parosela, suggests an attempt at com- 
promise not easily understood. 
The keys seem to have been admirably worked out. They are for 
the most part dichotomous and the distinctions are stated with a 
brevity and definiteness of contrast which can only be the result of 
much study. ‘The metric system of measurements has been used, a 
matter, we believe, of decided wisdom. On the other hand the use of 
the trinomial constitutes a pronounced defect. In this connection 
attention may be called to Recommendation XVIII of the Vienna 
Rules, which reads “ Not to publish a name without clearly indicating 
whether it is the name of a family or a tribe, a genus or a section, a 
species or a variety; briefly, without expressing an opinion on the 
nature of the group to which they give the name.” Of the numerous 
trinomials employed in the work under consideration, some have been 
originally described as subspecies, the majority as varieties, and some 
as forms. Here, these different categories are lumped without visible 
distinction. It is true, in the tabular statistics at the back of the book 
they are reckoned as “varieties,” but those not originally published as 
