v4 
which is probably better still. 
Among the oaks one new species is Q. durata which is Em- 
gelmann’s Q. Sense var. bullata. Quercus MacDougali and its 
mentioned. Quercus Palmeri was never described as a species but 
asa subspecies i in the varietal sense and yet he recognizes it as a 
species and ignores the older name Q. Dunnii Kellogg. he 
familiar chestnut oak is put into Pasania a separate genus though 
all but the Pflanzenfamilien still keep it in Quercus. The author 
seems to be a little muddled on pp. 357 and 359 where he says 
(under QO. Hien “teste spm. in Herb. Royal Botanic Gar- 
den Edinburgh, W. L. B,” and (under Q. chrysolepis) “while 
The eee makes nearly twenty new “formas,” several new 
varieties, and three new species, all of them with parenthetical 
Latin descriptions which are assumed to be his own manufacture 
but internal evidence shows that they were written by some one 
who was not familiar with botanical term 
There is one thing that the writer Hal much regrets to see 
and that in his reference, on page 342, to Miss Eastwood, who 
done many times the amount of unselfish work on the Californian 
flora that Mr. Jepson has done. The writer most emphatically dis- 
agrees with Miss Eastwood’s conception of species, but she is 
honest and a lady always, and this spiteful, jealous slur is too 
characteristic of Mr. Jepson’s treatment of people who have the 
misfortune to work in the same fie When one is reviewing the 
work of another it is proper to analyze his motives and methods 
and reliability but in a work intended to be standard if the work of 
another is ragged or poor it should be ignored 
nother bad feature of his work is that he refuses permission 
to see the types of his new species 
Mr. Jepson is not as well equipped for such a work in field 
experience as Mrs. Brandegee, Miss Eastwood, Prof. Hall, or the 
scholarly Parish. The writer had hoped that Mrs. Brand- 
egee could be prevailed upon to crown her Californian 
work by publishing a suitable flora of the state such as 
