374 Systematic Botany. [zoE 



expressed his positive opinions upon Ibis point.' We called attention to 

 this in our Journal (1892, 254) in these words: ' When, in the exercise of 

 our editorial discretion, we withheld from publication a subsequently 

 printed note by Dr. Britton on this subject, he did not scruple to say [and 

 to publish] that this was because we were "apparently afraid of the argu- 

 ment therein contained." We shall await with interest Dr. Britton's state- 

 ment of the reasons which have induced him to suppress the last utterances 

 of America's greatest systematist. ' 



'"Dr. Britton's explanation appears in the Botanical GazcUe for August, 

 1892, p. 254. He speaks of the letter as 'personal,' and, having admitted 

 the accuracy of Dr. Gray's correction as to nomenclature, proceeds: 'The 

 letter did not come to me as editor of the Btdletin of the Torrey Botanical 

 Club, for I was not then editing that journal. I did not realize that it was 

 intended for publication, and do not think that it was.' Moreover, having 

 sent the letter to Cambridge, in accordance with a request, and having 

 accepted a copy in exchange, he 'certainly never had any right to publish 

 it after it had passed from [his] possession.' 



"Commenting on the above, we said {Joiirn. Bot., 1892, 318): 'These 

 reasons may or may not be considered satisfactory, but we think that all 

 botanists will regret that Dr. Graj-'s last utterances on a subject in which 

 he is known to have taken a special interest were not made public' These 

 utterances are now before botanists, who must form their own conclusions 

 as to the motives which have hitherto prevented their publication. — Ed. 

 Journ. Bot] " 



SYSTEMATIC BOTANY. 



BY MARCUS E. JONES. 



To my mind the proper definition of the Systematic Botany, of 

 the day and for the most part, is The Study of dried Plants in a 

 few isolated localities remote from the Home of the Plants. 

 This kind of scientific work is systematic and botanical, but it is 

 not within gunshot of Systematic Botany. To claim that it is 

 the real thing requires as much assumption as when the zoolo- 

 gists arrogate to themselves the term biology or natural history. 



For a long time it has been the custom of western botanists 

 to provide themselves with the necessary literature and then 

 study their home plants, naming such plants as accord with the 

 ■descriptions given, the rest they send with such notes as they 

 consider valuable to certain persons in the East who have been 

 regarded as authorities. The authorities compare them with 

 the types of species or with their notions of the types, and if 



February 21, 1804. 



