78 BOTANICAL GAZETTE. 



Iiioetei< Batleri, Eugelm., n. sp. See BoT. Gaz., Vol. 8, No. 1, p. 1, 



Neiirly all the species meutioned in tlu- above list were veritied by Dr. Geo. Eugel- 

 mann. 



[As we have, perhaps tlioughtlessly, admitted to our pages articles not very compli- 

 mentary to Mr. J. C. Arthur, it is but simple justice that the following answer be pub- 

 lished- — Eds.] 



As IiE(iAKDs THE Floha OF lowA. — -Diuiog the last yea'- several articles* have ap- 

 peared in print derogatory to the exhibit of the Iowa flora, as shown by my pamphlet, 

 entitled "Contributions to the flora o{ Iowa." It is due to myself, and to all who may 

 have occasion to use the Catalogue, that these receive some notice. 



In the Botanical Gazette for October, 1877, is "An Explanation." It says there 

 has been made "a very unfortunate mistake for the credit of our State Flora, on the part 

 of the authors (it is incomprehensible how I can be spoken of in the plui-al number) of 

 our Catalogue, who report only 979 plants, while our whole number must be twice as 

 many." Then follows a disparaging comparison with the 2,084 species of the Ne- 

 braska Catalogue, iu which there is no mention that the latter contains 863 cryptogams, 

 a class of plants not included in the Iowa list. The writer is then charged with gross 

 negligence in preparing the Catalogue, etc., etc. 



The facts are these: In the pi-eparation of the Iowa Catalogue no elfoits were 

 spared to make it as complete as possible. A tour of the State was made in order to 



*See BoT. Gaz. vol. 3, pp. r.3, 107, 314 and \U: al^^o Bull. Torr. Bot. (.!!.. March, 1878. 

 • secure a personal consultation with every botanist and an examination of each herbarium 

 then known to the writer. Moreover every precaution was taken to prevent mistakes 

 in the deterininaiiou. When the evidence of authenticity was not satisfactory, the lo- 

 cality was given in a foot-note, so as to hold the person reporting it responsible. Mere 

 lists without the specimens received but little attention. Such a strict surveillance 

 naturally excluded many names which might otherwise have l)een used. The object 

 was to make a list of plants kntxrii to be growing in the State, and to exclude all others 

 \\o\\(d\vv jirohKblc it might seem that they were natives. Such has also been the aim in 

 making the additions (published iu the Proc. I)av. Acad. Nat. Sci.) to the Catalogue. 

 In these addenda n;iines have been expunged, changed, or added, as required by later 

 information. Printed co])ies are distributed to all Iowa botanists and to such others as 

 desire them. 



As regards the method of i^ublishing additions to the State flora, I cannot think 

 that the iudiscrimiuate and irresponsible use of the columns of botanical periodicals 

 (better fljled with other matter) for local floras, is at all conducive to accuracy. To 

 make a short and clear proof of this statement, I have tabulated all the additions to 

 the Iowa Hoi'a one person has publisheil in tJiis manner; and as this is done through no 

 ill will, 1)111 with the best of inlenticnis, all doubts in the discrimination have been re- 

 solved in his favor: 



Bot. Gaz. Bot. Gaz. Bot. Gaz. Toku. Bull. „, .„■, r> ,. „, 

 -Ian. '77. Juiu! -77. Oct. "77. Mar. -78. ^"'^'"- ^^' '^''"'• 

 Correct aiirt sii1(fieiiiu'ntly publislied. . S 4 12 i4 38 



Correct but already pnblishert :5 21 34 38 



Donbtruliy detenniiied ti 3 1 3 H ]:^ 



Incorrectly deterniiucd .-> .-, 4 4 18 31 



Without the scope ol' the Catalogue.. 5 11 1 8 10 



Total 37 13 H 40 85 100 



This shows that only 2S per cent, were luniu Jiilc adtlitious, that an equal number 

 sl;ould not have been i)ublislied, over a fifth were incorrectly named, and 10 per cent, 

 were of plants with which the Catalogue has nothing to do. 'i'ruthful information is 

 earnestly desired, but such as the above table shows to have been published is mislead- 

 ing and worse than none.— J. C. Arthur, Ayricaltural College, Ames, Iowa. 



