74 Receiit Literature. [zoe 



said to possess a " white, hairy callus," instead of a " white- hairy 

 callus," as Thurber wrote it, and there is nothing to indicate that it 

 is not all original. One would naturally infer from the above, how- 

 ever, that Bolander published this grass in the Botany of California, 

 which was in fact not the case. 



The description of Stipa leucotricha, on p. 53, is but a translation 

 of that given by Trinius and Ruprecht in their joint work usually 

 cited " Stipaceae," not " Gram. Agrost. ," as appears in the work 

 before us. 



On p. 55 Stipa Richardsoiiii Link is described and there is given 

 the reference in parenthesis, "(Gray's Manual, 6th ed., p. 641)." 

 This amounts to a statement by the author that he is describing the 

 same plant as that described by Gray in the 6th ed. of the Manual, 

 but he states below that his description applies to the ' ' large form 

 which Prof. Macoun called var. major, and is perhaps specifically 

 distinct from the form which is found on Lake Superior " (where on 

 the lake is not specified) " and eastward." We all know that it is 

 this eastern form which is " perhaps specifically distinct" from the 

 other, that is described in the Manual. 



Did Smith describe Polypogoii littoralis in the Botany of Cali- 

 fornia ? We might very justly presume so from the way the name 

 and description stand on p. 57. And why is it that quotation marks 

 enclose the descriptions of Polypogon Monspeliensis and P. littoralis, 

 and not that of P. maritimiis ? Is it because there were no speci- 

 mens of these plants in the National Herbarium that the mono- 

 graphic character of the work was thus marred by scissors and 

 paste ? The descriptions of Sporobolus compressits and S. serotiyius 

 are taken entire from Gray's Manual, and one might be led into the 

 error that the last named species was first described by Gray in the 

 6th edition of the Manual. 



On p. 80, there seems to be some confusion as to Calamagrostis 

 dubia. It is described as a species, and also presented as a var. of 

 C. Cajiadensis. 



There is nothing in the descriptions indicating the differential 

 characters of allied species, and rarely are there any comparisons 

 drawn. Carefully describing one organ or a part in one species 

 and saying nothing about this in the next in sequence is far too com- 

 mon a feature in existing descriptions of our plants, and leads the 

 student into a world of tribulation. A close attention to this point 



