224 Rhodora [DECEMBER 
diagnostic features of the recent segregates, but even the figure of 
J. tenuis, held over from the former edition, is insufficient for identifi- 
cation. It was satisfactory enough before the components of the 
aggregate species were recognized, but now might pass almost equally 
well for any of the segregates as for J. tenuis. To make the confusion 
in the illustration of this group complete, the figures of J. Vaseyi and 
J. secundus have become transposed. 
Of course the nomenclature of the new Britton and Brown is not 
in accord with the International Code. 
The reviewer cannot refrain from mentioning the subject of com- 
mon names, although there is really little to say except that the 
manufacture of “English” names has been continued with unabated 
zeal. (A distinction is made at New York between “English” and 
“vernacular” names.) We notice that Rubus canadensis (a Linnaean 
species!) is christened “ Millspaugh’s Blackberry,” because a few years 
ago Dr. Britton unwittingly added the name Rubus Millspaughii to 
its synonymy. The “English” name is just as superfluous as the 
Latin synonym. "The name Agrimonia Brittoniana goes to the synon- 
ymy of A. striata, but translated as “Britton’s Agrimony" it re- 
mains to satisfy an imaginary demand for a common name. An 
indefinite number of Crataegi have been given “ English" names, not- 
withstanding the fact that not more than three or four specialists 
make any pretense of knowing the species. Incidentally, they are 
called various kinds of “thorn” although the more frequent * vernacu- 
lar" name for Crataegus over much of this country is red-haw. 
The generic name Agalinis has been very recently brought forward 
for the purple-flowered species of the group which is familiarly known 
as Gerardia, and without further ado the “English” names change 
also, and we have Purple Agalinis, etc. We are naively informed in 
the Introduction that many of the “English” names cannot be found 
in the dictionary! Dr. Britton has used the name Dasystephana for 
part of the gentians, but he has not changed such pseudonyms as 
“Elliott's Gentian” to Elliott's Dasystephana. We surmise that 
the older “English” names here remain as an indication that this is 
one of the cases where a genus has been separated or distinguished 
from its congeners! 
On the whole it cannot be considered that the new Illustrated Flora 
shows evidence of a judicial or sympathetic weighing of the results of 
much of the scholarly activity which has taken place in the study of 
our flora since the publication of the former edition. Failure to keep 
fully abreast of the times is further indicated by the retention of the 
English system of measurements, now practically obsolete in scienti- 
fic works. In spite of all its shortcomings, however, the Illustrated 
Flora will doubtless continue to be a very popular work.— H. H. 
BanrLETT, Washington, D. C. 
