INTRODUCTION. 33 



of the so called Rochester and Madison Codes, adopted 

 in 1892 and 1893 by the Botanical Club of the American 

 Association for the Advancement of Science. 



At the outset it should again be stated that we believe 

 the nomenclature and arrangement of a local Flora should 

 follow that of some well known or authoritative work or 

 system. If, on the one hand, the system followed is not 

 well known, the catalogue will not be of much use to many 

 for whom it was intended ; if, on the other hand, the sys- 

 tem does not emanate from some respected authority, it is 

 folly to attempt to force it on any intelligent person. 

 The main question for an author or compiler to consider 

 clearly seems to be, What standard can be followed that 

 will be most intelligible and most useful to those for 

 whom it is intended, to the plant lover of slight botan- 

 ical knowledge, as well as to the professional botanist of 

 thorough training? In making the decision the author 

 need not necessarily follow his own personal inclinations, 

 in fact it is not right or expedient for him to do so if 

 clearness and usefulness must be sacrificed thereby, his 

 duty is to help, not to hinder his public, and to yield his 

 personal preference for the good of others. If he wishes 

 to express his personal opinions and convictions he can 

 do this at pleasure through many appropriate channels; 

 he may speak thus whenever he will. The public cares 

 very little for the personal convictions and peculiar the- 

 ories of its servants if unintelligible and practically 

 useless. It does demand, however, that the servant 

 should do his duty, and serve the good of the master, not 

 any private or selfish purpose of his own. It is hard to 

 see how the contrary can be maintained. 



It being granted, therefore, that we must not necessarily 

 set out our own personal opinions, but must make our 



