74 feecent Literature. [ZOE 
said to possess a ‘ white, hairy callus,” instead of a “ white-hairy 
callus,” as Thurber wrote it, and there is nothing to indicate that it 
is not all original. One would naturally infer from the above, how- 
ever, that Bolander published this grass in the Botany of California, 
which was in fact not the case. 
The description of Stipa leucotricha, on Pp. 53, is but a translation 
of that given by Trinius and Ruprecht in their joint work usually 
cited ‘‘ Stipaceze,” not “ Gram. Agrost.,’’ as appears in the work 
before us. 
On p. 55 Stipa Richardsonii Link is described and there is given 
the reference in parenthesis, “(Gray’s Manual, 6th ed., p. 641).”’ 
This amounts to a statement by the author that he is describing the 
same plant as that described by Gray in the 6th ed. of the Manual, 
_ but he states below that his description applies to the ‘ large form 
which Prof. Macoun called var. major, and is perhaps specifically 
distinct from the form which is found on Lake Superior’ (where on 
the lake is not specified) ‘and eastward.” We all know that it is 
this eastern form which is “ perhaps specifically distinct’? from the 
other, that is described in the Manual. 
Did Smith describe Polypogon littoralis in the Botany of Cali- 
fornia? We might very justly presume so from the way the name 
and description stand on Pp. 57. And why is it that quotation marks 
enclose the descriptions of Polypogon Monspeliensis and P. littoralis, 
and not that of P. maritimus? Is it because there were no speci- 
mens of these plants in the National Herbarium that the mono- 
graphic character of the work was thus marred by scissors and 
paste? The descriptions of Sporobolus compressus and S. serotinus 
are taken entire from Gray’s Manual, and one might be led into the 
error that the last named species was first described by Gray in the 
6th edition of the Manual. 
On p. 80, there seems to be some confusion as to Calamagrostis 
dubia. It is described as a species, and also presented as a var. of 
C. Canadensis. 
There is nothing .in the descriptions indicating the differential 
characters of allied species, and rarely are there any comparisons 
drawn. Carefully describing one organ or a part in one species 
and saying nothing about this in the next in sequence is far too com- 
mon a feature in existing descriptions of our plants, and leads the 
student into a world of tribulation. A close attention to this point 
