A Criticism on certain new Species of Panicum 



By Elmer D. Merrill 



In 1898 there was published in the Journal of the Elisha 

 Mitchell Scientific Society,* a paper on the dichotomous group of 

 Panicum in the Eastern United States which was evidently intended 

 to be a monograph of this group, covering the territory from Maine 

 to Minnesota, south to Florida and Indian Territory. 



Whatever the author's intentions may have been in publishing 

 this paper, it is evident from a cursory examination of his work 

 that he had neither the collections nor the literature necessary to a 

 thorough investigation of this very difficult group, and has suc- 

 ceeded in doing for science vastly more harm than good by ex- 

 pounding these species in such an unsatisfactory manner. An 



■ 



examination of this work is convincing only of the fact that the 

 author is imbued solely with the idea of species-making for the 

 satisfaction of seeing his own name after certain combinations 

 rather than with any idea of the advancement of science. 



The whole paper shows a carelessness in preparation of the de- 

 scriptions of species, synonymy, and citation of specimens which 

 could have been easily avoided with little care and trouble. Gross 

 ignorance or neglect is at once shown by the fact that of the twenty- 

 one species described as new, five of them bore names which were 

 homonyms, or at least so considered by the author later, synonymy 

 thus being burdened with so many useless names. One would think 

 that the author did not even know of the existence of the Index 

 Kewensis as the names in question are listed in that work, or grant- 

 ing that he did know of this work,, he did not take the trouble to 

 consult it. 



It seems advisable to make some comment on certain species 

 mentioned below, in order that those unfamiliar with the species 

 of this group may not be deceived. Our knowledge of these 

 new species " is based almost entirely on material sent by the 

 author as typical, but we are unable to discuss many of these forms 

 intelligently at present, simply because in many cases this typical 



<< 



* 15 : 22-62. 1898. 



593 



