194 THE PI.ANT WORI.D 



The above table gives a few comparisons between the number of 

 species included in a given genus by Chapman and by Small. It should 

 be explained that the names are taken in a random survey of the book, 

 and many of them represent the work of specialists other than Dr. Small, 

 their names being mentioned in the text. The table is presented, not in 

 a spirit of hostile criticism, but merely for the purpose of giving an idea 

 of the enormous number of species described in this work. And no 

 matter what may be our views on the subject of species limitations, we 

 must give credit to Dr. Small for the almost herculean labor he has per- 

 formed in studying, describing, and classifying this immense amount of 

 material from all parts of the South. 



In extenuation of this increase, the ratio in the above table being 

 about three to one, it should be remembered that within the last few 

 years many parts of the South have been explored thoroughly, with the 

 result of bringing to light, not only species new to science, but others of 

 extra-territorial distribution. Careful monographic study, moreover, has 

 demonstrated that many species maintained by the older writers are 

 really divisible into several distinct types, while the modern liberal ideas 

 of taxonomy admit to this rank many that would have been classed by 

 Dr. Chapman and his contemporaries as mere forms or varieties. Whether 

 these reasons are sufficient to justify the increase it is not the intention 

 of the present reviewer to decide. 



In nomenclature of genera and species Dr. Small follows the princi- 

 ples of the Rochester code, and it will be found very convenient to stu- 

 dents of the Southern flora to have at hand a reference work in which the 

 oldest specific names and the proper citations are available. The treat- 

 ment of the higher groups calls for serious consideration. The book 

 represents almost the extreme limit of radicalism in generic segregation. 

 New or little-known names stare one in the face on almost every page, 

 and it is a distinct shock to find old friends like the various species of 

 Oxalis wandering around amid the ponderous generic precincts of 

 lonoxalis, Monoxalis, IvOtoxalis, and Xanthoxalis. The genus Oxalis 

 is restricted to the O. Acetosella type, and the segregations give a good 

 idea of the extremely slight characters which the author regards as suf- 

 ficient for his purpose. Even if we grant that the caulescent species 

 should be separated from the acaulescent, the wisdom of which is by no 

 means certain, we have left a group which Dr. Small splits into three 

 genera on such characters as the mode of division of the leaf-blade, the 

 shape of the stigma, and the degree of adnation of the stipules. On this 

 basis nearly all of the familiar natural genera, such as Pinus, Prunus, 

 Cypripedium, and many others are split asunder and new generic names 

 given to them. We can not apply to this process the explanations or 

 the excuses that are valid in the case of the species ; for generic delimi- 



