FLORA OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. 



INTRODUCTION. 



The principal aim of the author in this work is to present a sum- 

 mary of our present knowledge of the vascular plants of Washington 

 and to call attention to the more important problems, both taxonomic 

 and ecological, which have become disclosed. 



Simple keys to the genera and species are inserted so ns to give 

 the work a wider usefulness. 



The nomenclature aims to follow the recently proposed Philadel- 

 phia Code. In accordance with the rules of this code in the matter of 

 generic names, it is not improbable that several of those here used 

 will have to be changed when the necessary bibliographical researchers 

 have been made. As the important synonomy is here given with 

 each species, there will be little difficulty in coordinating the name 

 adopted with any other commonly used heretofore, or which may be 

 proposed hereafter. 



As regards the limitation of species the author has in the main 

 adopted i: rather conservative attitude. Some of the recently pro- 

 posed species seem well founded even if the differences are slight. 

 In other cases the species or subspecies seem to be based on too slight 

 characters and are therefore unworthy of nomenclatorial recogni- 

 tion. As one's acceptance or rejection of a proposed species depends 

 in part on personal judgment, and in part on the evidence available, 

 attention is, in nearly all cases, called to those which the author 

 rejects. In all such cases additional material, as well as careful fiekl 

 notes, is desirable for the better understanding of the forms in 

 question. 



In the matter of the tendency common at present to raise to 

 generic rank what have heretofore been considered subgenera, the 

 writer likewise takes a conservative attitude. It is at least doubtful 

 if the very large number of new names thus occasioned does not more 

 than counterbalance any advantage argued in favor of the practice. 

 Certainly the carrying of the practice to such an extreme that genera 

 are considered to be made up of species of similar habit, rather than 

 to be based on structural characters, seems inadvisable. Neither does 

 it impress one as a valid argument that, because in some extremely 

 natural families the genera must perforce be based on very slight 



9 



