44 



FLORA OF WASHINGTON AND VICINITY. 



The following is the table of percentages ; 



Orders. 



''^•'3 



c8 a 



-a 03 



,-Ph 

 5^ 





00",— 1 



^ .r. 



Compositas 



Gramineae 



Cyperacese 



LeguminosBB 



Rosaceoe 



Labiatas 



CrucifersB 



Scrophulariacese 



Filices 



Ranunculaceae . . 



Ericaceae 



Cupuliferae* 



LiliacesB 



Orchidaceae . 



PolygonaceaB 



UmbeUiferae 



Caryophyllaceae 



Salicaceao 



Onagraceae 



Saxifragaceae . . . 

 Chenopodiaceae . , 



Naiadaceae 



Polemoniaceae . . 



11.9 

 8.9 

 8.6 

 4.6 

 3.7 

 3.4 

 2.6 

 2.6 

 2.4 

 2.2 

 2.1 

 2.1 

 L9 

 1.9 

 1.8 

 L8 

 1.5 

 1.5 

 0.9 

 0.7 

 0.7 

 0.7 

 0.5 



16.5 

 5.4 

 4.4 

 7.2 

 3.4 

 0.9 

 4.4 

 4.5 

 1.0 

 3.0 

 1.3 

 0.4 

 3.0 

 0.6 

 4.0 

 2.4 

 2.2 

 0.9 

 2.3 

 2.1 

 2.1 

 0.7 

 3.3 



* Including the Betulaceae. 



Comparisons have already been made of our local flora with that of 

 Essex County, Massachusetts, which contains so nearly the same num- 

 ber of plants. In examining the percentages in the above table these 

 distinctions are equally maniiest. In both divisions of the JHchlamydecc, 

 and also in the total Dicotyledons and the total PJiccnogamia, our flora 

 is richer than that of Essex County, while in the Monoclilamydew, the 

 Monocotyledons, the Gymnosperms, and the Cryi)togams it falls below. 

 In the Gompositce, Leguminosce, Labiatce, Gruciferce, Scrophulariacew, 



