1920] Nelson,—Crepis setosa in Oregon 191 
Such an unpleasant accusation, if based upon fact, would be 
serious but Dr. Brainerd has certainly forgotten that, less than two 
months before the putlication of R. sativus, in a letter dated “ Middle- 
bury, Vt., Dec. 16, 1899” and written and signed by himself, he wrote 
the editors of RHODORA : 
" [f I get my article in by Jan. 1, will you publish it in Feb. Rho- 
dora? ———— is preparing a ‘monograph’ of the genus. I should 
like to propose R. sativus as a species before he does, as I suspect 
he will." 
Comment is unnecessary. 
The plate (X) of Rubus argutus shows an inflorescence with no 
foliaceous bracts and there is no mention of such in the description 
opposite. Yet on p. 55 we are told that R. Jeckylanus is a hybrid 
which “ Resembles R. argutus in having leafy-bracted inflorescence. ” 
This was presumably a misprint for R. frondosus; at least misprints 
are frequent in the publication. For instance, R. glandicaulis (p. 61) 
is treated as a hybrid of R. allegheniensis and R. setosus because it 
“Resembles R. pergratus in having pubescent leaves," etc.; R. 
frondisentis (p. 63) is called a hybrid of R. pergratus and R. setosus 
because it “ Resembles R. allegheniensis in having pubescent leaves,” 
etc. Two of these confusions have been corrected in manuscript 
in some of the copies issued; but the very fact that they passed un- 
changed through the final proof suggests indecision as to the parent- 
age of the "hybrids." It would be quite unlikely that these incon- 
sistencies would be due to mischievousness of the compositor or to 
“a too liberal revision of . . . manuscript by the editors" of 
the Experiment Station bulletins. 
But despite the many points in which a difference of interpretation 
is inevitable and the unconvincing nature of much of the data pres- 
ented, students of the perplexing genus Rubus will find much to 
commend in the paper. Of great importance, of course, are the 
records of apparently defective pollen (there is no statement of actual 
germination-tests) and constancy of seedlings; and everyone who 
uses the paper will regret that there are so few of the latter records 
for the 46 reputed hybrids. Finally, special praise should be given 
the illustrations of species, 31 exquisite full-page drawings, obviously 
by Schuyler Mathews. These drawings add tremendously to the 
value of the publication. 
CREPIS SETOSA IN OnEGON.—Mr. Long's interesting study of the 
occurrence of Crepis biennis (in Ruopora 21: 209 ff.) calls forcibly 
to mind my own experience with the introduced species of this genus 
in Western Oregon. When I began to study the flora of the Willam- 
ette Valley in 1915, it soon became evident that C. capillaris deserved 
a place among our most abundant weeds, occurring everywhere in 
