BOTANICAL (rAZETTK. lU 



tion of pollen m the anthers of flowering plants. These very important 

 difterences between the Ferns and the Ophioglossacea', require us to i lace 

 them in separate classes of equivalent value. 



As the Equisetacece are in some respects more highly differentiated than 

 the ferns, they must therefore be placed in advance of them in the system 

 of classification; yet both the Ferns and Equisetums have an extensive 

 thalloid exhistance, and therefore must be placed below the Ophioglossacece, 

 which in turn having only one sort of spores, as have also the Ferns and 

 Equisetums, must remain with them in the isosporous division of vascular 

 cryptogams, in position nearest the heterosporous division, where male and 

 female prothalli are developed from different spores of the same plant, and 

 thus suggest the staraeu? and pistils of flowering plants. 



It is not intended to offer hare anything more than a mere suggestion as 

 to the position occupied by the Botrychia [Ophioglossacece) in a general 

 classification; but as the interest increases in the collection of our Ameri- 

 can sp8cies,it will be required, where information can be obtained regarding 

 them. 



It should be known more generally by collectors that Op/i/oy/oss/on and 

 Bofnjchiiim are not true ferns, and that they should be looked upon rather 

 as fern allies, for they differ from the Ferns more than the Equisetums. and 

 as much as most Lycopods. — John Robinson. [Science Xeirs^ Dec. 15,] 



A Reply. — We are exceedingly sorry if the pages of the (tazette have 

 teen the means of causing hard feeling between some of our Iowa botan- 

 ists. In the September number we published a communication from Mr. 

 J. C. Arthur, author of the Catalogue of the Iowa Flora, in which he re- 

 plied to certain statements that had been published in reference to his Cat- 

 alogue. We have a reply from the Rev. Rob't Burgess claiming that we 

 have not treated him fairly in not publishing some of his communications 

 in which he had corrected the mistakes that had been made. Of course, if 

 we have thus failed to do Mi"- Burgess justice, we are ready to right it as 

 far as we can, and for this purpose we publish some of the statements of 

 his letter. 



''A criticism upon my Botanical Reports, in the September Gtazette 

 calls for a brief reply. The writer charges to my account two articles in 

 the GrAZETTE and BiilJetin, for the publication of which I am not responsi- 

 ble. Mr. Arthur, ignorant of the fact that I had sent a correct report to 

 the Gazette (unpublished) to rectify and replace them, says that "barely 

 1-5 of all my analyses were correct. [This is a mistake, as there is no such 



