38 
- 
ing use a Mr. Heller is not able to see the difference between 
tuch wo s | have criticised above and the results published 
in my it Couteibalions he certainly will need the sympathy of 
the botanical public. The poet published there and oe sup- 
pression of species or reduct of them was the result of a — 
lifetime spent in active wo paring in eke field and oe. soe : 
of the work having been held in abeyance for years after the man- 
uscript was written in order to be sure that as few mistakes as 
possible were made. I am not objecting to new names, the more 
the better, if they are based on sound views of specific limitation 
and exhaustive field research, but I do object and and most other — 
. botanists object to the slip-shod and inexcusable work mentioned ~ 
Mr. Heller is right in saying that there is but one way to 
determine the validity of a species and that is by thorough field © 
ork. I have several times emphasized the same thing in my — 
Consteibutions. saying of those who claim to be able to settle such 
things by appealing to their “botanical sntufiens® that “no one 
men ¢ 
re on known facts. Such arguments always get their users 
into difficulty. I well remember when it was a stock argument — 
among geologists to claim that the climate of the Arctic was — 
Tropical in the early Quaternary because elephants (mastodons) 
lived there, animals which live only in Tropical climates. Many — 
years afterwards one of these animals was aes ina perfect state: — 
of preservation imbedded in the ice, and it pro 3 
founded have been proved fictitious. For example the develop- 
ment of stipules in willows has proven fallacious; the drying — 
black of the leaves is due to laziness of collectors. The develop- — 
ment of the torus and dissection of the leaves in Eschscholtzia are _ 
of little taxonomic value. The development of pappus in Town- — 
sendia an znactis is largely accidental and not specific al- — 
ways. The development of awns in Oxytheca has coat value. _ 
