RETROSPECT xi 



Mr. McFarland has given freely of photographs and advice; and he has also overseen 

 the mechanical construction of the Cyclopedia with rare devotion and skill. 



///. HOW A GENUS IS WRITTEN UP 



The method of writing up a genus differs with the various writers. The Editor 

 can speak only for himself, but the frequency with which persons ask for a specific 

 method of procedure suggests that a brief narrative may be useful to students. 



The first question that arises when a new genus is to be written up is the num- 

 ber of species to be accounted for. The "trade list" and the card index are con- 

 sulted, and a list is made of all the species that are to be included in the account. 

 The writer first standardizes the names with Index Kewensis as a working basis, 

 and then consults some analytic account of the genus itself, as Bentham and 

 Hooker's Genera Plautarum, and Engler and Prantl's Natiirlichen Pflanzenfamilien. 

 Herbarium specimens are examined. A characterization is made of the genus. All 

 available works are consulted for suggestions as to its horticultural and economic 

 importance. 



Then follows the really important part of the undertaking the accounting for 

 all the species. All monographs of the genus are consulted ; herbarium specimens 

 are studied in detail; horticultural cyclopedias and handbooks are searched for descrip- 

 tive notes of the species. Every effort is made to understand the species as a whole 

 before any one species is actually described, for in this cyclopedia the species are com- 

 pared and contrasted, not arranged alphabetically. A key to all the species must be 

 outlined before the work of description can be undertaken. This means that every 

 species must be studied and properly classified. This making of the key or classifi- 

 cation comprises more than half the average work of writing up the various genera. 

 Cultivated plants come from many parts of the world. In many cases no single account 

 of the genus contains all the species. One or two species from outlying regions may 

 not fit into any scheme of classification made in the books. The descriptions of them 

 may be inadequate. Often a whole day will be spent in the endeavor to find characters 

 that will allow these outlying species to be included in a common key. Moreover, 

 botanical keys are often too minute and technical to be used in a horticultural work. 

 The key-scheme once made, the description of the species is drawn from every available 

 source; from specimens and personal experience when possible; from authoritative 

 monographs; from horticultural journals and treatises; from notes sent by correspond- 

 ents; from the information contained in trade catalogues. On doubtful points corre- 

 spondence is opened with persons who know the plants, particularly with those who 

 advertise the given kinds. The fulness of the descriptions will depend on how difficult 

 the plants are to distinguish anC how important the group is to the cultivator. It has 

 been the custom with the Editor to work mostly with bare outlines at first, afterwards 

 filling in the matters of secondary and 'incidental importance from subsequent reading 

 and investigation. It has been the custom of the Associate Editor to devour and 

 digest all the incidentals, as well as the fundamentals, before beginning the writing. 



In the editing of manuscripts, the first effort is to determine whether the author 

 has accounted for all the names in the trade. Too often the troublesome names have 

 been omitted, although he worked from lists sent from the Cyclopedia office. These 

 omitted names must be inserted, often necessitating the entire reconstruction of the 

 classificatory scheme. The second attention is given to the scheme itself, to see that it 



