32 



particular than some others are). Most of the shortcomings are 

 not pecuHar to this paper by any means, but are merely manifes- 

 tations of widespread modern tendencies, due largely to excessive 

 specialization in education and a growing indifference to matters 

 not directly in one's line; and for some of them the author can 

 hardly be held responsible at all. Others are points which will 

 probably be given more attention in the future than they have 

 in the past. The principal ones are: 



Using too many different serial numbers on cover or title-page, one of them Roman 



(a sort of notation which has outlived its usefulness). 

 Dating the publication falsely, and thus working an injustice to any one who may 



have published something similar between the alleged date and the real date. 

 Omitting dates from illustrations (where they are just as useful as on herbarium 



labels, etc.). 

 Carelessness in spelling and proof-reading. 

 Using the terms "region" and "ecology" too loosely. 

 Too few comparisons with other parts of the world and citations of previous 



literature. 

 Insufficient explanation of the methods of treatment. 

 Too little correlation of vegetation with soil. 

 Lack of quantitative figures for vegetation. 

 Assuming that species treated as native in floras of the northeastern United States 



must be indigenous in every part thereof, even where the habitat indicates 



otherwise. 

 Too great discrepancy between ecological and taxonomic parts, in number of 



species included. 

 Using fictitious common names, which appear to serve no useful purpose, and take 



up space which might be better occupied with information about habitats or 



other significant facts. 

 Decapitalizing specific names, and thus obliterating certain interesting etymo- 

 logical distinctions without benefiting the reader appreciably. 



Roland M. Harper 



