VOL. Ill. ] Reecent Literature. 2 73 
species can best be determined by a kind of individual “ insight” 
without any rule whatever, has had a long trial and the heteroge- 
neous results are hardly encouraging. {K. B. 
Monograph of the Grasses of the United States and British Amer- 
ica. By DR. GEORGE VASEY, Botanist, Department of Agriculture. 
Pamphlet, 8vo pp. vi, 89, xiv.—This is No. 1, of vol. iii, of the 
‘* Contributions from the U. S. National Herbarium,” and is ‘“ pub- 
lished by the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture.’’ This part 
closes with the family Agrostidez. 
The author states that for several years he has had in contempla- 
tion the work here presented. Every one knows of the great wealth 
of material—necessary for the preparation of such a work—con- 
tained in the National Herbarium. Collections of grasses from all 
parts of North America have been coming to this herbarium for a 
long time past, and these additions have been especially frequent in 
recent years. Liberally supplied with books and assistants, and 
otherwise very generously supported by our National Government, 
the Botanist of the Department has had unrivalled facilities for the 
production of the present ‘“‘ Monograph.”’ 
The work before us comes far from meeting our expectations. It 
is entirely lacking in that clear, precise and systematic presentation 
of facts which stamp the work of the true scientist; and instead of 
being a “ Monograph,”’ it is very largely a compilation—a bringing 
together of scattered descriptions, some of which are quoted and 
duly credited, some quoted ‘‘ with a little alteration’’ (mangled, 
would better express it), and some quoted without any recognition 
of the source whatever; and these last form no inconsiderable por- 
tion of the whole. This frequent quotation of descriptions pub- 
lished by various authors renders the whole thing incongruous, not 
only in the relative length and character of the descriptions given, 
but in the terminology. If the original descriptions of the species 
had been copied instead of those published by later authors, and a 
proper system of references adopted, the value of the work would 
have been increased. 
Setaria viridis and S. glauca, on p. 38 of the ‘‘ Monograph,”’ do 
not appear to possess very marked distinguishing characters. 
Stipa Stillmani, on p. 51, is rendered as follows: “ S. Stillmant 
Bolander. (Bot. Cal. ii. p. 287).” Then follows Dr. Thurber’s de- 
scription of this species, word for word, excepting that the floret is 
