Ses So ae 
SS, Oe ae ee eee 
THE RANGE OF AMORPHA FRUTICOSA. 133 
have no doubt that A. fruticosa extends to southern Califor- 
nia. But Mr. Holzinger’s supposition that I took that for A. 
Californica and then gave to the real Californica a new 
name, hispidula, is entirely gratuitous; and, as he does so 
without making the remotest allusion to the strong characters 
assigned to it, as distinct from Californica, the dogmatism of 
his paper seems to become stronger and stronger as he pro- 
ceeds; if, indeed, anything written in the name of science, 
could be more absolutely dogmatical than his first sentence. 
The first thing to be settled, before the distribution, or range, 
of a species be discussed, is, what is the species ? What are 
its characters ? If the author had given his view of these, 
then one would have had the means of judging as to the 
acceptability of his conclusions. I am really quite with Mr. 
Holzinger in thinking that A. fruticosa is in New Mexico, 
Arizona and southern California, and I protest against his 
assuming that I ever mistook any of those shrubs for A. Cal- 
ifornica. He has no grounds for it. But, agreed though we 
are, upon this range of A. fruticosa, it is only an opinion, 
and it is either valid or worthless according to the correctness 
or incorrectness of our estimate of the characters of that 
species. Between A. Californica and A. hispidula the same 
holds good. Possibly the two may be one; for possibly 
Nuttall, in spite of the keenness of his botanical eye and 
touch, failed to see or feel the prickles that arm the bush. 
Or it may even be that there are complete transitions from 
the type of his species and the type of mine. In either case 
the two would be proven one, and A. hispidula a synonym. 
But bald opinions that such and such herbarium specimens 
belong to this or that species, add nothing to knowledge, may 
mislead the unwary, and should not be too freely given in the 
name of science.—Epw. L. GREENE.] 
