222 Rhodora [DECEMBER 
the same as S. atrocinctus”; both Scirpus Eriophorum and S. pedicella- 
tus are referred without qualification to S. cyperinus. Now it must be 
apparent from considerable recent literature that many discriminating 
botanists are regularly distinguishing these forms of Scirpus, and they 
will very justly view as unsatisfactory a treatment of the genus which 
does not define them in some category,— if not as species at least as 
varieties. In this connection attention may be called to the fact 
that in the new edition Scirpus Fernaldi and S. novae-angliae are 
retained as species, although it is certainly difficult to understand how 
they can consistently be retained even as weak varieties in a treatment 
which denies the distinctness of Scirpus atrocinctus, S. Eriophorum and 
S. Long. 
For a further example of Dr. Britton's extremely unsatisfactory 
treatment of critical species we may turn to the genus Rubus. None 
of the species which Blanchard has recently proposed is even mentioned 
in the Illustrated Flora, either in synonymy or elsewhere. Doubtless 
it was by way of extenuation that this note was introduced under 
the generic description: “All the British brambles were reduced to 
a single species, R. fruticosus L., by Bentham, but other authors 
have recognized and described a large number." Even this distin- 
guished precedent gives little justification for ignoring all the recent 
propositions in Rubus, however, for Bentham's knowledge of the 
British flora was notoriously superficial. Darwin, in 1858, wrote to 
Hooker, *I have ordered Bentham, for, as — says, it will be 
very curious to see a Flora written by a man who knows nothing 
of British plants!!" "Today conservative British botanists recognize 
the distinctness of more species of Rubus than even the most extreme 
splitters would have admitted to their floras fifty years ago. - 
Perhaps the recently proposed blackberries are not yet well enough 
attested so that their omission from a popular work should be criti- 
cised. In the case of many other genera, however, it is impossible to 
overlook the omission or reduction to synonymy of species which are 
considered distinct by many excellent botanists. It would seem that 
such species as Potamogeton bupleuroides, Eleocharis diandra, E. nitida, 
E. Macounii, Salix coactilis, Populus virginiana, Salicornia rubra, 
Comandra Richardsiana, Anemone riparia, Amelanchier humilis, 
Antennaria fallax, and A. petaloidea have stronger claims to recogni- 
tion than the apocryphal Ophioglossum arenarium, Eleocharis Smallii, 
Betula alleghaniensis, Fragaria canadensis, F. americana, Xanthoxalis 
Bushu, X. rufa, Ilex bronxensis, Acer carolinianum, etc. which are 
maintained as species. 
Dr..Britton believes in small genera; nevertheless he does not go so 
far as some of his more radical associates in breaking up the older 
genera. Thus, he does not maintain in the new edition a number of 
generic segregates, such as Nemexia, Rubacer and Negundo, which 
have attained more or less currency since the publication of the 
former edition. In general, however, he has carried the subdivision 
