NOTES AND COMMENT 



The recent mention in these pages of the papers on plant distribu- 

 tion which were read at the San Francisco meeting of the American 

 Association has caused one of our correspondents to send us the titles 

 of papers on the same subject which were read in two symposiums held 

 twenty-five and fifteen years ago respectively. The first of these was 

 at the Indianapolis meeting of the American Association in 1890, the 

 second at the New York meeting in 1900. The titles of these con- 

 tributions are worthy of republication at the present time, as they afford 

 an index of the major interests in American plant geography during 

 a period of ten years or more. 



Papers read at the Indianapolis Meeting: 



Sereno Watson. The relation of the Mexican flora to that of the United States. 

 John M. Coulter. Geographical distribution of North American Umbelliferae. 

 Lucien M. Underwood. The distribution of Hepaticae of North America. 

 Byron D. Halsted. The migration of weeds. 



W. J. Beal. Geographical distribution of the grasses of North America. 

 John M. Coulter. Geographical distribution of North American Cornaceae. 

 N. L. Britton. On the general geographical distribution of North American 

 plants. 



Papers read at the New York Meeting: 



B. L. Robinson. Distribution of the Spermatophytes in New England. 



J. K. Small. Distribution of the Spermatophyta in the southeastern United 

 States. 



Thomas H. Kearney. Notes on the Lower Austral element in the flora of the 

 southern Appalachian region. 



H. C. Cowles. Physiographic ecology of northern Michigan. 



Roscoe Pound. Vegetative elements of the sandhill region. 



P. A. Rydberg. Composition of the Rocky Mountain flora. 



C. V. Piper. Flora of the Columbian lavas. 



G. V. Nash. Distribution of the grasses of North America. 



W. L. Bray. Relationship between the North and South American floras. 



J. N. Rose. Floral zones of Mexico. 



N. L. Britton. Origin of the flora of North America. 



The majority of the participants in these symposiums are best known 

 through their work in systematic botany, a circumstance which calls 



294 



