88 Muhlenbergia, Volume 4_ 
Still another fault, happily not so common now as form-— 
erly, is description by comparison without explanation. To say 
that a species is like a certain other species and neglect to defi- 
nitely explain that likeness is altogether inexcusable. How are 
we to know what that other species is like when we have neither 
the original description at hand nor a typical specimen? Also, 
we do not know whether the comparer has the real thing at 
hand or whether he has something utterly different. Then, too, 
we may have a mistaken impression as to the identity of the old 
species, and further complicate matters. To cite a case: Del- 
Pphinium Andersonii was never adequately described, as any one 
may see by looking up the references. We have a plant about 
Reno which we suspect is it; others no doubt consider as typical 
of D. Andersonii the plant described as D. Sonne, while others 
may have something else in view. So what do we know about 
a Delphinium if it is said to be similar to D. Andersonit unless 
we ascertain what is the type of D. Andersonzi and describe it? 
While we are speaking about species and descriptions, it 
might be well to emphasize the importance of drawing up uni- 
form descriptions, whether they are original ones or not. There 
should be an orderly sequence of the descriptive terms. It is 
very annoying to work with descriptions that have no order 
about them. As a model of an orderly work, we may cite Dr. 
Small’s Flora of the Southeastern United States. Here we can 
compare the parts of a species with those of its nearest relative 
and readily note the similarity or difference. So far as hasty 
examination shows, Dr. Rydberg is also following this course in 
the North American Flora, another part of which has recently 
been issued. 
