160 
least, as mere appelations for plants. It would seem on the 
whole best to adopt the plan of Bentham and Hooker, not to go 
back of Linnzus. If it is thought desirable to refer to the 
ancient history of the science, that can best be treated by itself, 
and Professor Greene’s great learning in that topic would provide 
him material for a most valuable and interesting volume. 
How can he, in any event, safely credit a name to Dioscorides 
or Theophrastus? They, surely, did not originate such terms as 
Astragalus and Sorbus, but merely recorded what certain plants 
were called in their time. Some of these terms must be as old 
as spoken language, and probably a number of them exist on the 
monuments of ancient Egypt. Ni bacB: 
Flora of Kansas—Additions to the. B. B. Smyth. (Trans. 
Kans. Acad. Sci. xii. 105-1 10). 
This is stated to be in the nature of a supplement to the cata- 
logue of Kansas plants prepared by Prof. J. H. Carruth about 
fourteen years ago. The title of the paper should include the 
term “ Subtractions from ” as well as “ Addition to” the flora, as 
the author begins with the excellent plan of eliminating 160 
species which have been credited to the State but need confirma- 
tion, leaving 1,355 species, to which are to be added the 355 
Anthophyta and 16 Pteridophyta included in this paper. A pre- 
liminary list of 96 mosses is also added, so that the totals for the 
known flora of the State now stand: Anthophyta 1,666, Pterido- 
phyta 40, Musci 96. The nomenclature used is not up to modern 
standards, and we are inclined to deprecate such fine distinctions 
as are included under the terms “escaped,” “escaping,” “escaped 
slightly,” “escaping slightly,” “escaping sparingly” and 
“trying to escape,” but localities are freely noted and the 
work will undoubtedly be of value to every botanical collector in 
Kansas. Ag H: 
Flowers and Insects, VI. Chas. Robertson. (Bot. Gaz. xvi. 
65-71). 
The flowers which are the subjects of this contribution are 
those of Triosteum perfoliatum, Cephalanthus occidentalis, Lobelia 
spicata, L. leptostachys, L. syphilitica, L. cardinalis, L. cardinalis 
X syphilitica, (in which the corolla is described as “ shorter and 
broader and the lobes shorter and firmer than in ZL. cardinalis and 
