20* CONTRIBUTIONS TO WESTERN BOTANY NO. IS 



TIDESTROM'S FLORA OF UTAH AND NEVADA 



Tidestrom's Flora of Utah and Nevada. Some years ago this young 

 man came out to Utah connected with the seed department of the Gov- 

 trament, and was employed at the forest nursery in Big Cottonwood 

 canon. When that was abandoned he left the state. He did a little 

 l^otanizmg in the Wasatch then. Later on he was in the La Sal region 

 of the Navajo. Basin, where he tried to make several species out of the 

 grotto forms of Aquilegia. Recently he has worked a little in Western 

 Nevada.. This seems to be his equipment for writing a Flora of the 

 great states of Utah and Nevada. During the several years he spent in 

 Utah he never made any attempt to acquaint himself with my herbarium, 

 lior did he ever call on me but once and that was when I was away in 

 Afontrma; No one could ever write a Flora of Utah and Nevada without 

 tnou'ing the types in my herbarium. It seems to be a fad of the Govem- 

 Ki at to send inexperienced young men out to write floras of western 



em 



Recently 



le 



ih ii was done by Standley, who was employed to write a Flora of Glacier 

 .•atmnal Park, when The University of Montana already had one in 

 Aib. form ready for the press. 



^One of the most noticeable things about this Flora is the looseness of 

 a.ity citations. Everywhere we find references like this: "Covillea " 

 Larrea, belt, "Artemisia" belt, which sometimes mean something and often 

 «io- not. P. 80 he speaks of the aspen and spruce belts as though they 

 were separate things, when they stand for the same thing. On pa ere 73 

 m- quoting -Oryzopsis micrantaha, he says: "Plains and foothills^ and 

 canyons of the Covillea belt, Nebraska to Saskatchewan," etc. Rather 

 rnique that that belt should reach Nebraska and the Saskatchewan. In 

 fpeakmg of _ O. hymenoides range he says "Desert areas, plains, canvons 

 tnx^ mountain sides of the Covillea belt, Manitoba to Texas " etc which 

 T^ not true, as there is no Covillea belt in Maaiitcba. He does not seem 

 to know what the Artemisfa belt is. 1\ covers all of the Pinyon and 

 cTecidious oak zones. Then in quoting the range of Oryzopsis Webberi he 



Ih Jvfunil California and is a doubtful species at best. His work 

 sho.vs little discrimination as to the value of species, quoting almost 



^^rT a" "': "r^^ '7f ^?' ^° *^^ ^^S^'-' ^^^^-^ i 'actually 



wh h should h.^-^''-^?^^ f ^"^J' ^' ^°""^ ^^ ^^rfo^^ publications 

 V. h, ch should be discnmmated from the real thing. His synonymy unhes- 



natmgly quotes specie, of mine, t>-pes of which he never^aw^nd never 

 made any attempt to see, as s^-nonyms of other species. 



I-r^ oJoW^ X tZT}!' t^'^- ^ "''"^'^^ monographed, let us examine 

 1 oro.cgv. A. ampllanus he gives as growTng in "wet places artemi^a 

 ttm . , t! !"n>.W5 anw.-here but an alV.irn^ .w„„ Zz.... .-. ,i P^/^^^s, anemu^ia 



