16 : Rhodora [JANUARY 
tioning in their publications unpublished names which they do not 
accept, * * * ” 
A few misprints and slight errors occur, as must be expected in an 
work of this extent. Thus the new combination “Suaeda Moquini 
(Torr.) A. Nelson” and its synonym “ Dondia Moquina A. Nelson” 
ring needless changes upon "l'orrey's original Chenopodina Moquint. 
Brassica arvensis is a combination which should be attributed to 
Kuntze not to B. S. P., and Melilotus alba is a name formed by Des- 
rousseaux not by Desvaux. More serious is the lack accuracy in the 
bibliographical citations. As a test of this matter the genus Chry- 
sothamnus was selected at random. Its treatment contains thirty- 
three citations and of these ten are in some one or more particulars 
incorrect. 
There are several rather surprising omissions from the flora, even 
in the case of Colorado plants. No mention, for instance, is made of 
Encelia nutans Eastwood or of Chaenactis scaposa Eastwood; and 
what has become of the Mimoseae and Caesalpineae of which there 
are at least four genera in Colorado ? 
Space does not permit the taking up of many minor matters in the 
separation of species, interpretation of types — We had thought for 
instance that Pulsatilla hirsutissima and Agrimonia Brittoniana had 
been adequately threshed out — applications of names, limits of range, 
etc.; on which the editor's conclusions are not entirely convincing. 
On the whole, however, the work has been elaborated with great care, 
a proper sense of proportion, and a painstaking regard for simplicity, 
brevity, and clearness. There is much to commend, only details to 
criticise. At points one wishes the editor had had access to the large 
eastern herbaria and libraries during his work, but on the other hand 
he has had the inestimable advantage of prolonged and intensive 
field-work in the region described.— B. L. R. 
Vol. 11, no. 132, including pages 221 to 254, plate 82, and title page of the 
volume, was issued 29 December, 1909. 
