VOL. 5] Error in Genera and Species. 97 



chief American sinner in this respect is, in fact, somewhat noto- 

 rious for comparing his new species, not with their nearest, but 

 with their more remote relatives. It may be observed in 

 descriptions by this author, that after a brief description dealing 

 only with the grosser anatomy, the plant in question is compared 

 with one or two others, ending with "species not near akin," 

 "exceedingly well-marked," "not closely related to any other," 

 etc.; indeed, he not only habitually does this kind of work, but 

 defends it 18 as sufficient. In genera the work of this author is 

 even worse, if that be possible, and he has abundantly shown 

 that he is unable to trace an unfamiliar plant to its correct genus, 

 or a genus to its proper group. This may possibly be due to 

 defective methods of investigation, for inability to get at the 

 finer details of structure is only too evident. Such grievous 

 errors as the location of the Zygophyllaceous genus Viscainoa 14 in 

 the vicinity of Simmondsia and of Biolettia 10 near Erigeron ought 

 to have taught him caution, but that it has not is quite evident 

 from the genus Wootonia, 16 which is described as rayless, and of 

 "A quite distinct new type, about equally allied to Bidens and 

 Cosmos, but impossible to be referred to either." The figure of 

 the plant agrees so well with Dr. Gray's Dicranocarpus parvi- 

 florus 11 as to raise at once a suspicion of their identity; and a 

 specimen, very kindly furnished at my request by Mr. Wooton, 

 shows the suspicion to be well founded. In the only flower ex- 

 amined there were four well-formed but short rays, and four disk 

 flowers. Both under Dicranocarpus and Wootonia the specific 

 name parviflorus has been applied on account of this very obvious 

 character. It is not, however, the earliest specific name, the first 

 known description being under Heterospermum, IN but drawn from 

 very imperfect material. It was collected "between the Guadaloupe 



(13) 'One of our beginners in botanical authorship has lately published the complaint 

 that of my Antennaria media no description has been given [K.Nelson in Bull. Torr. 

 xxiv, 21i']. The complaint is not, I must confess, wholly groundless; although, in giving 

 the essential characters of the species as compared with those of H. umbrlnella on the 

 one hand, and of A. alpina on the other, I fully satisfied the actual requirements of pub- 

 lication, at least as regards the public of experienced phvtographers." K. L. Greene 

 Pitt. iv. 85. 



|14l Pitt, i, 163 — Embryo very incorrectly described. 



(15) Pitt, ii, 215. 



(Id) Bull. Torr. xxv 121. PI. 333. 



(17) Plauttc Thurberiatiic, 322. 



(IS) H. dicranocarpum. PI. Wrightianae. i, 111'). 



