We het or are led to suppose that certain genera are 
ing revised by certain botanists, yet years pass and not even a 
synopsis appears. Even if the work is not sufficiently advanced 
for full treatment, a key compiled from what has already been 
published would be an immense help. It is simply impossible 
to satisfactorily determine many of the species in a general col- 
lection, when one does not have the time to work over the whole 
genus. I am willing to do my part, and would have taken up 
some genus long ago if the time had been at my command. 
However, before long I hope to issue an account of the genus 
Lupinus in Santa Clara county California, preparatory to a re- 
vision of the species occurring in the State, and later may ex- 
tend the work to include all the species in the United States. 
At the “international” botanical congress held in Vienna 
two years ago, it was decided, presumably by European botan- 
ists, that beginning with 1908, all descriptions of new plants 
-should be printed in Latin. We understand that there was a 
large minority vote cast against this proposition, and from the 
standpoint of the American botanist rightly so. Presumably 
European botanists are competent to write correct Latin descrip- 
tions, but we on this side are not, and we have no cause to feel 
ashamed about the matter. The study of the dead languages is 
no longer insisted upon in the majority of our colleges and uni- 
vetsities. Especially is this true in the scientific courses offered, 
and botanists are supposed to take a scientific course. It is 
true, the most of us could with some practice and after many 
humiliating mistakes, muster a fairly good Latin description, 
but what necessity is there for it? We are an English speaking 
nation; the most of us are interested in American plants only; 
there are enough of us in this country to properly look after our 
own flora if we are diligent about it, and why should we afflict 
ourselves with plant descriptions written in an alien language? 
sre 
