Academy of Science. 23 



REPOKT ON BOTANY. 



BY JAMES H. CARRUTH. 



It would be very queer if, when we gave a man's name, we were obliged to give also 

 the name of the person who gave him his name. But this is the way — I suppose prop- 

 erly — in Botany, and I have to acknowledge not having attended to this in my reports 

 hitherto. Nor can I do it throughout in the present. If, at a future day, I am able to 

 embody all the reports in one, I will try to do it. 



I have not done much in the field the past year — partly from the pressure of other du- 

 ties, but more because I have had my hands full of indoor work in this department, as 

 will appear. Had I had more time, only the gleanings remained in Douglas county. 



Last spring I sent to several persons copies of the reports already published, asking 

 them to collect specimens of rare species, and also to make lists of such as they found, not 

 already published. 



The additions this year have come largely in this way. Prof. Snow, with the help of 

 his students and correspondents, has furnished more than twenty. Miss M. P. Wright, of 

 Burlington, has brought me specimens of three — two of them common at the East, but 

 not hitherto found in Kansas. Miss E. C. Wright, living near Irving, Marshall county, 

 has sent me a list of forty or fifty, of which she feels certain, but her specimens have been 

 accidentally spoiled. Mr. E. A. Popenoe, of Topeka, has made a trip to Western Kan- 

 sas, and has given me a list of more than forty found there and at home. Dr. L. Watmer, 

 of Ellis, has sent me plants all summer — more than I have found time to analyze. In- 

 deed, the plants of Western Kansas are so different from those east of the Mississippi — 

 the field of Wood and Gray — that I could not have done much with them, had not Dr. 

 W. kindly put me in the way to get Porter & Coulter's' Flora of Colorado; and even with 

 this aid, the work has been slow, because dried specimens, especially of small plants, are 

 much more difficult to analyze than fresh ones. Stamens and pistils often afibrd no aid, 

 and the form of the flower is often spoiled. Still I think I have succeeded with most that 

 I have tried, and am very sorry that I could not have tried all. If I or those who have 

 reported to me have made mistakes, we will try to have all right in the final summing up. 



Our previous lists have made over 800. The lists given me this year are in part the 

 same, but make in all about 140 different ones. Porter & Coulter give, as the result of 

 the observations of some six to ten botanists in Colorado, about 1,050 species, including 

 the lilies and one or two other small ord^ers of cryptogamin. Mr. N. Colman has pub- 

 lished a Flora of Southern Michigan, and his catalogue contains 1,375 copies, including 

 as above. 



Prof. Wood's Class Book describes about 3,900 species growing east of the Mississippi, 

 a large proportion being found in the South Atlantic and Gulf States. 



In view of these facts, I think we may expect to find in Kansas about 1,200 species. I 

 have mentioned Porter & Coulter. I would recommend to Kansas botanists, specially 

 at the west, to procure their work. It may be had by writing to the Department of the 

 Interior, and sending a dime or two to pay postage. The species not in Gray's Manual 

 are described fully. Generic descriptions, outside of Gray, are also given. The genera 

 not in Gray are 94, and the species over 600. 



The tendency is quite strong of late to consider some forms of plants which have been 

 hitherto regarded as species as only varieties. I think it will recpiire long and close ob- 

 servation to determine some questions of this kind. Animals in their wild state, are but 

 little inclined to run into varieties. Domestic animals, much. It seems to be so with 

 plants. If wild species vary, why should we not expect to find "grades" indefinitely, as 

 among uncultivated ones? To me it seems that however close the resemblance between 



