361 
in a certain sense true. Although we have no local “ Floras” that 
can be called in any sense really good or exhaustive, with the ex- 
ception, perhaps, of those covering the northeastern part of the 
continent, all parts of the United States, except the States men- 
tioned, have some publications concerning their flora. 
As being the first local flora of the northwestern part of our 
country, Professor Howell's « Flora” is, therefore, doubly wel- 
come. The territory covered, as indicated by the title, viz., west 
of Utah, should include the western half of Idaho anda small por- 
tion of western Montana. It is doubtful, however, if the “ Flora” 
can be said to represent this region, especially the mountain dis- 
tricts of northern Idaho and western Montana, as their flora is 
yet comparatively little known, and it is doubtful if Professor 
Howell has had access to the collections made in the last few 
years by Sandberg, Leiberg, Heller, McDougal and Henderson, in 
Idaho, and by R. S. Williams, Professor Kelsey and Frank 
Tweedy, in Montana. 
If the region is limited to Oregon, Washington and a small 
portion of Idaho, then it is safe to say that none of our local man- 
uals and reports, except those of the northeastern United States, 
better represents the region covered than does Professor Howell's ' 
work. It is well known that the author has spent many years in 
collecting material for his work, having studied the flora, not only 
in the herbarium, but also in the field. 
In his preface Prof. Howell makes the following humble re- 
marks: “ As the writing of descriptions of plants at this late date 
is, to a great extent, writing or copying what others have pre-. 
viously done, it is hardly right to claim originality for work done 
in that field, I, therefore, wish to acknowledge here, that I have 
used the works of Torrey and Gray,. . . and others.’ In the list 
given the author has omitted the name of Dr. B. L. Robinson. Itis 
perhaps intended to be included in the words “and others,” but 
if the most important sources are to be given, Dr. Robinson’s 
work, especially as far as the present fascicle is concerned, has 
more right to be mentioned than that of several given in the list. 
Although the descriptions of several species not seen by 
the author are simply copied, the work can in no way said to be 
a mere compilation. The individuality of the author shows itself 
