180 The Ottawa Naturalist. [Dec. 



called in question, That is an affirmation which never could 

 have been warranted, but as the result of a certain piece of 

 phytographic investigation, which investigation it is probable 

 no one, studying Canadian botany, has j^et undertaken. For 

 example : has any one with the so-called Rhus glabra before him 

 betaken himself to the original Linnsean account of the shrub, 

 to see if it answered to that account? 



To come nearer home, I do not believe that any one in New 

 England has ever yet gone into the history and description of 

 Rhus glabra far enough to determine whether or not there exists 

 in all New England any shrub answering to Linnseus' Rhus glabra. 

 The easy thing to do is what the great majority of botanists do, 

 whether of New England, of Canada, or elsewhere, and that easy 

 thing is, simply to follow some one else's dictum ; take the author- 

 ity of some other author, and accept that, without a moment's 

 thought as to whether it may be right or wrong; even never 

 doubting that it is right. 



Such a course as this is as far as possible from being scientific; 

 yet, as I have said, it is the usual course. It is the easy way, 

 albeit an utterly irresponsible way; a way that leads to the 

 making of books and catalogues that, instead of being truthful, 

 reiterate and disseminate and perpetuate a hundred errors, it 

 may be, on every fifty pages. 



I have taken up this case of Rhus glabra chiefly as being 

 illustrative of the eas}^ irresponsible way that many botanists — 

 not those of Canada any more than those of a hundred other 

 regions — accept and reprint old names as applied to new plants. 



Linnaeus did not himself describe his Rhus glabra, but cited 

 a fine description that was already before the public, that of the 

 great Dillenius. To this author, then, we must go, if we are to 

 ascertain what the Rhus glabra, Linn., is like. 



Dillenius (Hortus Elthamensis, p. 323, b. 243) has a folio 

 plate, accompanied by almost a folio page of description, so 

 that we have no great difficulty in ascertaining both what the 

 original Rhus glabra, Linn., looks like, and what is its native 

 region. He attributes to his shrub a foliage made up of from 

 21 to 25 leaflets, each leaflet nearly 2 inches wide and 6 inches 

 long or more. This is making the individual leaf of real Rhus 

 glabra to be more than two feet long. Neither in Canada, or in 

 any part of New England adjacent to Canada, is there any 

 Rhus heard of as having foliage of anything approaching such 

 dimensions, or of such a great number of leaflets. And the 

 originals of Dillenius — therefore of Linnasus— were from a very 

 different region, namely southern Virginia. This, the genuine 

 Rhus glabra, Linn., of which one of the specific marks is its very 

 large foliage, is found all up and down the country lying south of 



