l8 9 J ] Editorial. 



151 



blooming in a fence corner in December last during a period of warm 

 sunny days and occasional sharp, frosty nights. 



The head is normal as to the involucre, the white rays and a zone 

 of a certain width of disk flowers. Then however comes a zone of 

 ray flowers again, standing more or less upright and looking outwards; 

 and surmounting the rounded summit of the receptacle is a tuft of the 

 brown bordered scales quite similar except as to size to those of the 

 involucre. There is no extension of the normal axis and no tendency 

 to a repetition of the flowering or vegetating shoot; hence it is not an 

 example of the not uncommon proliferation unless we shou'd call it a 

 case of inverted proliferation which would not be accounting for its 

 existence. 



'I he explanation which I would offer is based upon a hint obtained 

 from Sachs's Plant Physiology where he describes an abnormal sun- 

 flower in illustrating the principles of acropetal succession in growth. 

 I should say that an injury, possibly cold, arrested growth at the de- 

 veloping apex of the receptacle when this latter was still quite young 

 so that it ceased to be the growing point. Just below and round 

 about this region renewed proliferation of embryonic tissue began 

 and proceeded backwards towards the older parts, forming a new 

 growing zone to which the arrested original growing point now stood 

 in the same relation as the older parts in the ordinary receptacle stand 

 to the normal growing apex or centrum. In furtker development the 

 disposition of the members of the inflorescence would now be in the 

 true but inverted progressive sequence from the older to the newer 

 parts of the axis; that is, the abnormally placed involucral scales about 

 the center, followed by the ring of ray flowers and these succeeded by 

 the disk flowers which merge into those of the unaltered parts of the 



receptacle.— B. W. Barton. Baltimore, AM. 



EDITORIAL. 



Ir really seems that the flood gates have been opened in the mat- 

 tej of priority in nomenclature and that we are to be deluged with 

 ancient names for well-known plants. That too great conservatism 

 may have withheld the authors of our floras from making needful 

 ' hanges may be conceded to those who are radical reformers, since it 



ls of no importance for our present purpose. But the search after 



new-old names is leading those who are making chanfl I into some 

 ludicrous and even ridiculous blunders. It is not our intention to 



