1910] Botany of Rocky Mountains 15 
varieties are still quoted without change of authority. It is quite true 
that sharp distinction in the groups below the species is difficult, 
especially difficult in the case of a flora newly explored, yet the experi- 
ence of all older civilizations shows conclusively that such distinctions 
have ultimately to be made in order to satisfy discriminating taxono- 
mists. ‘The use of the trinomial may be convenient in that it enables 
a writer to group in a non-committal way all subdivisions of species in 
one vague and unnamed category, but it is obviously a reactionary 
measure, avoiding precision, and therefore not likely to persist in the 
long run. It is comparable with the neglect of small coin in newly 
settled regions. 
Another tendency of the present work which is seen with regret is the 
raising to specific rank of certain forms or varieties of plants recently 
introduced from the Old World. ‘Thus the commoner form of the 
Prickly Lettuce becomes Lactuca integrata (Gren. & Godr.) A. 
Nelson, and the Russian Thistle, Salsola pestifer A. Nelson. These 
are both plants the taxonomic status of which should obviously be 
determined by affinities with their Old World relatives, and it is, we 
believe, the universal judgment of botanists of the Old World that they 
represent in their native habitats merely rather trifling varieties. It 
can scarcely be supposed that the accidental introduction of these 
particular varieties on American soil and their consequent rapid ais- 
semination constitutes any valid reason for a change in their rank. 
Furthermore the editor is not consistent, since he retains Chrysan- 
themum Leucanthemum for the common American White Weed, 
notwithstanding the fact that it is fully as distinct from the typical 
European form of that species. 
The editor has considerately listed at the end of the book the new 
scientific names launched in the body of the text. ‘There are about 
170 of these, a number by no means excessive; but the list unhappily 
is by no means complete, for several new names have been coined 
in the text which are not included. The fact that most of these happen 
to be combinations lightly launched and not advanced as valid even 
by their creator would seem to indicate that they had been purposely 
excluded from the list, which thereby becomes positively misleading. 
Examples of this are *' P[olygonum] lilacina (Greene); P. calophylla 
(Greene), both under Bistorta," also several other Polygonums and 
Brickellia (Coleosanthus) umbellatus (Greene), B. (Coleosanthus) 
albicaulis (Rydb.), B. (Coleosanthus) scaber (Greene), and B. (Coleo- 
santhus) humilis (Greene). What possible excuse can be offered for 
the wholly needless creation of these new binomials, endorsed by no 
one, not even by the author who foists them upon the botanical public ? 
It is true that some of these names may ultimately be taken up by 
future writers and in that event the editor will win the dubious honor 
of having his name quoted after them. In this connection attention 
may be called to Recommendation XIX of the Vienna Rules which 
reads “ Botanists will do well * * * * to avoid publishing or men- 
