1922] Fernald,—A misleading State Flora (Review) 97 
most care and constant reference to and exact understanding of the 
specimens; but the list before us seems to have been prepared without 
sufficient realization of these requirements and too often without 
accurately determined material. The present writer has long refrained 
from the unpleasant task of reviewing this new state flora; but 
recently several careful workers upon the flora of New England 
have convinced him that it is important to issue a warning, lest those 
who are not so situated as to realize the uncritical character of the 
list may be misled by it into perpetuating errors which its publica- 
tion has spread broadcast. For instance, Bennett’s list, following 
the usage of his time, enumerated Eriophorum polystachion and 
Carex adusta, but it was long since pointed out that the plant of south- 
ern New England which formerly passed as E. polystachion is E. 
viridi-carinatum!, while the other American species which has passed 
as E. polystachion 1s E. angustifolium, known in New England only 
from the state of Maine? "The new list, although citing these papers, 
enumerates both E. viridi-cariantum and E. angustifolium. Simi- 
larly the name Carex adusta was used in Bennett's time in an inclusive 
sense, covering C. foenca and C. aenea, but true C. adusta, as under- 
stood by all recent students? of the group, is a northern species known 
in New England only from Maine. All three plants, however, are cred- 
ited to Rhode Island in the new list, although C. foenea, var. perplexa 
is probably the only one of them in the state. Again, the references 
cited in the new list as the bases for Rhode Island records have been 
too often misunderstood or carelessly compiled. For example, on 
p. 19 Carex Crawei is listed as occurring in Rhode Island on the basis 
of the present reviewer's Preliminary List of New England Carices*, 
but reference to the latter list is sufficient to show that C. Crawei 
is there credited only to Maine, although it was then suggested (p. 
228) that this calcicolous species of the St. Lawrence basin should 
be sought in Vermont. These few illustrations indicate the unfortu- 
nate nature of the compilation upon which the new Rhode Island 
list was based; and we regret the necessity of stating that much 
of the wholly new matter in the list cannot be accepted at its face 
value. When the list first came to his attention the reviewer wrote 
the Providence Franklin Society asking to see specimens of many of 
the species which, it is quite safe to say, do not occur in Rhode Island. 
Members of the Society have most generously sought for such spec- 
imens but have been able to supply only two, the vouchers for Soli- 
dago Boottii and Centaurea americana. These vouchers prove to be 
characteristic specimens of Solidago nemoralis and Centaurea nigra, 
1 See Fernald, Ruopona, vii. 89 (1905). 
2 See Fernald, Ruopora, x. 136, 138, 141 (1908). 
3 See Fernald, Proc. Am. Acad. xxxvii. 481 (1902), Ruopora, iv. 218 (1902); 
Robinson & Fernald in Gray, Man. ed. 7, 222 (1908); Mackenzie in Britton & Brown 
IH. FL ed. 2, 1. 386 (1913). 
4 Ruopora, IV. 219 (1902). 
