﻿on the Red River of Louisiana 



157 



other reports, probably the House 1854 edition, was used as 

 printers' copy. 



The differences in the botanical appendices in the three editions 

 are such as would be made by a typographer or a non-botanical 

 proof-reader. It is evident that proof of the two later editions did 

 not go through Dr. Torrey's hands. For purposes of consulta- 

 tion, so far as the subject matter is concerned, therefore, any one 

 of these editions is equally valuable, the only difference of im- 

 portance being that of pagination. Fortunately it is the true first 

 edition, that is, the Senate 1853 edition, which has usually been 

 cited in botanical publications, including the Botany of the Mexican 

 Boundary Survey, Gray's Synoptical Flora, Watson's Biblio- 

 graphical Index, and the Index Kewensis. Indeed, I have seen 

 no published citations from either of the two later editions. 



This report is a good illustration of the wasteful methods pur- 

 sued in the publication of government reports before the establish- 



ment of the 



present Government Printing Office. 



The three 



editions of this report were published by as many different firms, 

 the type was set up three times, and the government therefore 

 paid thrice the normal cost of composition work. Under the present 

 system the printing of all three editions would have been done under 

 one roof, and electrotypes would have been used for the two later 

 editions, thus reducing the cost of composition by two-thirds. 



