104 Muhlenbergia, Volume 3 
The writing of descriptions in Latin means that the study of 
botany should be restricted to the few who have special facili- 
ties in the way of herbaria and literature plus an intimate 
knowledge of Latin, whether they are really good botanists or — 
not. A man who knows nothing whatever of Latin may be a 
far better botanist than one who can write a faultless Latin 
description. He may have gained his knowledge direct from 
Nature’s workshop in the woods and fields, and really know 
plants instead of thinking he knows them, as is the case with 
the man who works chiefly with dried material. Let us not 
deprive this botanist—the rea/ botanist—of the chance to read 
plant descriptions written in a language which he understands. 
While upon the subject of descriptions, there is another 
phase of the matter sadly in need of attention. We want de- 
scriptions that describe. Some people do write them so that 
the plant can be recognized when one meets it, but others do 
not. A description which may fit any one of a half dozen te- 
lated species is of no earthly use whatever, and the name that 
accompanies it might as well be classed as a momen nudum at 
once. When one wishes to verify a plant he naturally turns to 
the original description if he has no trustworthy material for 
comparison. ‘That description should be as complete as possi- 
ble. Every part of the plant should be carefully examined, and 
all the characters noted. And if possible the plant should be a 
fresh one, not a dried one. This advice should be carefully di- 
gested not only by beginners, but by those who have already 
written many descriptions. Brevity is a good thing sometimes, 
but not in the case of an original plant description. Some very 
important character is likely to be overlooked if we discard any 
feature as of no special value. 
