1920] A Flora of the Penobscot Bay Region 95 
rador Peninsula; from Rupert River, entering Hudson Bay also from 
the Labrador Peninsula; from the shores of Georgian Bay and else- 
where in Ontario and northern Quebec; while reference merely to 
Macoun’s Catalogue would have revealed other stations in the North: 
Lake Mistassini, Muskoka, etc. 
This is not a matter of opinion nor a difference of interpretation. 
It is a statement of the quickly accessible facts which the author 
failed to get at. But why, without making sure to look up the 
most available sources of information, place before the always re- 
ceptive botanical public such a map as is here reproduced in 
Fig. 2 (Hill's map), when it would have been almost as simple to 
prepare an approximately correct one, as indicated in Fig. 3? "The 
author of Fig. 2 has colored solidly all of eastern New Brunswick, 
as well as all of southeastern Massachusetts (including Nantucket) 
and all southern Connecticut; but neither Fowler nor Macoun list 
Aster nemoralis in New Brunswick from northeast of the extreme 
southwest corner of the province; the reviewer, who has extensively 
explored in both eastern New Brunswick and in southeastern Massa- 
chusetts, knows of no evidence of the Aster in either area; and Bick- 
nell, who certainly knows Nantucket, does not record the species 
from there. Neither is it mentioned in the Connecticut Botanical 
Society's Catalogue of the Flowering Plants and Ferns of Connecticut. 
In fact, the only authentic record from Connecticut seems to be 
that of a single station in Thompson,! the northeasternmost town of 
the state. 
Other maps published by Hill display the same failure to check 
the immediately accessible data and show the ease with which 
supposed ranges can be mapped by those who do not realize that errors 
once born never die but, on the contrary, by others not situated to 
know the facts are continually mistaken for the truth and consequently 
perpetuated. For instance, the map said to show the distribution 
of Viburnum dentatum has the solid black extending nearly across 
Minnesota and Tennessee; but the really alert botanists of Michigan, 
Minnesota or Tennessee, should they see Hill's map, may well wonder 
where he got his data. The herbaria examined by him do not supply 
them, and it is significant that Beal, who has published the standard 
flora of Michigan, did not know of V. dentatum in the state, that 
Gattinger did not know it in Tennessee, and that, in their Minnesota 
Trees and Shrubs, Clements, Rosendahl & Butters do not mention it. 
The reviewer regrets having to write so discouragingly of a piece 
of work which he would like wholly to commend. The first parts are 
decidedly praiseworthy but, although having some excellent points, 
like the discrimination of a comparatively rich flora overlying the 
small basic area of the region, the last part unfortunately contains 
so many assumptions that it must be classed as another addition to 
1 Weatherby, Ruopona, xxi. 75 (1919). 
- 
