2,or 



BOTANICAL GAZETTE. 



A Comparative View of the Flora of Indiana.— A recent 



paper by Mr. Lester F. Ward, entitled "Field and Closet Notes on 

 the Flora of Washington and Vicinity," has suggested the filling in 

 of some of his tables with similar statements in regard to the flora of In- 

 diana. I use, without verification, Mr. Ward's estimates of the flora 

 of the Eastern United States, being the region covered by the Man- 

 uals of Drs. Gray and Chapman, and give in the first table the six- 

 teen largest orders in the Flora of Washington and vicinity, in the 

 flora of the Eastern United States, and in the flora of Indiana, the 

 sixteen being arranged m the order of their importance. For con- 

 venience, Mr. Ward's list will be headed D. C. : 



D. C. 



1. Compositae 

 2 Gramine* 



3. CyperaceiE 



4. Leguminosiv 

 ;■). Rosaceae 



6. Labiatse 



7. Cruciteraj 



8. Sfrophiilariacea3 



9. Filices 



10. KanuDCulaceae 



11. Ericaceae 



12. Cupuliferae 



13. Orcliidaceai 



14. Liliacea? 



15. Polygonaceae 



16. Umbel liferiie 



E. U. 8. 



1. Compositae 



2. Cyperacete 



3. Gramiueae 



4. Leguminosa? 



5. F'Jices 



6. Labiatae 



7. Rohaceae 



8. Scropliulariaceae 



9. Ericaceae 



10. Liliaceas 



11. Ranunculacese 

 13. CrucifertB 



13. Orcliidace* 



14. Udi belli ferae 



15. Polygon aceae 

 1(). Cupuliferae 



Ind. 



1. Compositae 



2. Cyperaceae 



3. Gramineae 



4. Leguminosae 



5. Labiatae 



6. Rosaceae 



7. Scropliulariaceae 



8. Liliaceae 



9. Filices 



10. Ranunculaceae 



11. Crucitene 



12. Orchidacetu 



13. Polygonacea? 



14. Umbellifera' 



15. Caryopliyilactae 

 Vo. Ericaceae 



Ii will thus be seen that the flora of Indiana is more normal than 

 that near Washington, and that, omitting the Filices and Ericacea. 

 (our most poverty stricken orders) the second and third lists 

 correspond with great exactness. These lists alone would mdicate 

 some unusual conditions in fhe vicinity of Washington, and such we 

 find in the blending of the floras of north and south, as indicated by 

 Mr. Ward. In comparing the first list with the third we notice that 

 the LiliacecB rise from the 14th place to the 8th, the Cupulifene drop 

 out entirely, being the 17th in order of unportance ; the Caryopliydaceoe 

 come into the first 16; and the Ericaceae, drop from the nth place to 

 the i6th. Mr. Ward shows that his local flora is richest proportion- 

 ally in the Cupuliferoe, Rosacece. and Crucifera, and poorest in the Fil- 

 ices and Lei:;umi?iosce. The Cupiiliferce, in fact, form the greatest 

 peculiarity of the flora, containing as many as 58 per cent, of the spe- 

 cies occurring in the whole of the Eastern part of the United States. 

 The Indiana flora, compared with the same standard, is richest in the 

 Rosacece, Polygonacea' ond Cupuli/erce, but none of them so abnormally 

 represented as the Cupuliferoe. near Washington, the Rosacece rising to 

 but 48 per cent. The abundant Crucifera. of Mr. Ward's list, in Indi- 

 ana yield in importance to the Liliacea', Ranunculacex and Labiatae, and 

 just equal the Orchidaceoe. The Indiana flora is proportionally poorest 

 in the Filices and Ericaceae. 



Comparing the 15 large genera listed by Mr. Ward with the 



