194 



earlier paper in this volume by Dr. Underwood. The following features 

 however may be noted which will serve to show what is yet lacking for a 

 complete knowledge of the phanerogamic flora of the state 



All of these lists, with perhaps the exception of those of Dr. J. Schneck, 

 and Dr. A. J. Phinney, are limited by politicalinste&d of natural boundaries. 

 It is evident that while such limitation is popular and apparently in some 

 cases necessary, it cannot result in publications which will furnish a basis 

 for any useful generalizations without the most painstaking and arduous 

 comparisons. Many apparent anomalies in distribution would doubtless 

 be explained were the lists based upon natural divisions. In the excep- 

 tional lists referred to above, that of Dr. Schneck treats of the flora of the 

 lower Wabash valley, thus necessarily including certain counties in Illi- 

 nois as well as in Indiana, while that of Dr. Phinney refers to the Alpine 

 region of Indiana and includes the four counties of Delaware, Wayne, Ran- 

 dolph and Jay. In both these lists, however, the political boundary is the 

 final limitation. In the rather picturesque language of Prof, ^MacMillan 

 — "Just as we should not attempt to interpret the laws governing the 

 action of a constitutional convention by periodic examinations of a mer- 

 cury-barometer, no more should we Mtempt to investigate the laws of 

 plant distribution by adhering to the artificial lines which separate from 

 adjacent commonwealths, or divide into counties or sections." The seven 

 botanical regions indicated in Coulter and Thomson's Origin of Indiana 

 Flora (vol. XIV., State Geol. Rep. pp. 256-7), while not perhaps strictly 

 natural in all particulars will at least serve as a basis for present work, 

 being established upon topographical and geological features. 



A second feature to be noted in the lists mentioned above is, that in no 

 single instance, so far as come to my knowledge, can the list be authenti- 

 cated by herbarium specimens. In most cases the belief in the existence 

 of a plant in any given locality rests solely upon the word of the collector. 

 Those of us who know the necessity for critical study and careful compari- 

 son which obtains in so many species, recognize at once the unsatisfactory 

 nature of such data. Given a sufficient paucity of specimens added to a 

 desire to make as large a local list as possible and the factors are present 

 for the introduction of many species " new to the state." I examined 

 last year a bundle of seventeen plants " new to the state," and found 

 eleven of them incorrectly determined. I do not mean to depreciate in 

 the slightest the valuable lists already published, or to question the bo- 

 tanical knowledge and acumen of their authors. I only wish to empha- 



