a new name dedicated to him, when an honest botanist would 

 seek for all the connecting forms where he got his aberrant, 

 ones in order to determine its origin which in nine cases out 

 of ten would be settled at once. Our herbaria are loaded up 

 with such stuff. There are a number of such fictitious species 

 recognized in the latter paper. 



In the matter of specific and generic limitation there has 

 been a wide deviation from the accurate method of the first 

 paper, even genera have been founded on such a trivial char- 

 acter as the excessive wrinkling of wings, such as Rhysopterus 

 for example. In his first paper in commenting on my Cymop- 

 terus corrugatus, he criticises my statement as to the greatly 

 wrinkled wings intimating that it is a character of no consc- 

 ciucnce while in the new monograph he makes that a generic 

 character. The creation of new genera has been treated in 

 detail elsewhere. 



Lack of field study is shown in keeping up Coloptera 

 Fendleri, Newberryi and Parryi, though he follows the 

 writer in relegating C. Jonesii to synonymy. A very little field 

 work would show them that Newberryi is only a form of Fend- 

 leri, and Parryi of glomeratus (all now being relegated back 

 to Cymopterus). The same thing is shown in Leptotaenia 

 multifida and Eatoni on the fictitious character of presence or 

 apparent absence of oil tubes, Ligusticum is another genus 

 treated in the same manner, and in Cicuta where he has fol- 

 lowed Greene in the supposed character of the roots. Other 

 evidence of lack of field work is shown where he says that 

 Cymopterus globosus (p. 183) is a "very rare species" while in 

 fact it is a very common species. Pseudocymopterus montanus 

 var. purpureus is another case where a variety is kept up on 

 a character which we find on different parts of a plant from 

 the same root, though it is not so bad as Greene's species of 

 Prunus where he founds two species from specimens of mine 

 taken from the same plant. 



We find an adherence in this paper to the discarded nom- 

 enclature of the Brittonian school which never was adopted 

 by the botanists of this country and to which the authors were 

 opposed but had to submit as the nomenclature was controlled 

 by Coville. The use of this system caused the resurrection 

 of many discarded names and the unnecessary changes oi 

 many names, which the Vienna code now relegates to syn- 

 onymy. 



