INTRODUCTION vii 



NOMENCLATURE AND LIMITATION OF GENERA AND SPECIES 



The nomenclature used agrees, as far as possible, with the so-called American 

 Code, used at the United States National Herbarium and Department of Agri- 

 culture, the New York Botanical Garden, and many of the universities and 

 botanical institutions of this country. It differs from the International Code, 

 followed by many institutions, principally in the following two features: it allows 

 few exceptions from the rule that the oldest generic and specific name (after 

 Linnaeus' Species Plantarum of 1753) should be used, and provides that, if a 

 Latin name has been used for one plant, it can never be used for another. The 

 nomenclature used in this manual differs somewhat on this account from that 

 used by other writers on the flora of the region or a part thereof. Another im- 

 portant difference is due to the fact that the author believes that in many cases 

 unnatural groups of species of diverse habit and structure should not be retained 

 as genera just because our predecessors have regarded them as such. In other 

 words, a genus should be divided into several, if it can be split up into smaller 

 and more natural ones. Such divided genera are, for instance, the old large 

 genera Astragalus, Oenothera, and Aster. On the other hand, the fully as large 

 genera Carex, Eriogonum, and Senecio have been kept intact, as no natural divi- 

 sion could be found. 



For those who disagree with the author in the matters of nomenclature and 

 limitation of genera and species, there will be very little difficulty in finding the 

 scientific name to which they are accustomed, as synonyms have been freely 

 cited, in fact as far as deemed necessary. The synonymy, of course, is by no 

 means complete; only such is included as has been in use for the plant recently, or 

 is necessary for the explanation of the accepted name, or represents supposed 

 new species, which the author regards as indistinguishable from the one described. 

 In the cases where a synonym is preceded by a "(?)" this means that the author 

 has not seen the type of the synonym, but from the description supposes that it 

 represents the same species as the one accepted. 



A few of my friends have suggested that the place of publication of each 

 name should also be given; while this would have increased the utility of the 

 book, it would have added perhaps 150 pages. This manual will be useful to 

 three classes: the amateur botanists, the students in high schools and colleges, and 

 the professional botanists. The first two classes, as a rule, do not care for the 

 full citation, and most of the professional botanists have access to the "Kew 

 Index" and the "Card Catalogue," or other reference books. The omission of 

 the place of publication will work hardships, therefore, to only a few. 



PRONUNCIATION AND ACCENTUATION 



In most of the schools of this country the so-called Roman pronunciation is 

 used in reading Latin, but exceedingly few botanists pronounce the Latin names 

 in accordance with it. They are supposed to pronounce it according to the so- 

 called English method, but the author has not found two persons who do it alike. 

 He frankly admits that he does not know how to pronounce the names according 

 to the latter method. According to the Roman method, as he was taught it, 

 the vowels are pronounced nearly as follows: 



a long as in father short as in hat 

 e " " " there " " " met 



i " " " machine " " " it 

 o " " " no " " " not 



u " " " rule " " " put 



The consonants he learned to pronounce as they are in English, except that 

 c and g are hard as in cat or go, even before e, i, and y; j as consonant y, z as ts, 

 and ch and ph in Greek words as k and /. 



Most of the mispronunciations, whether the English, Continental, or Roman 

 pronunciation is used, are due to ignorance of the accent. On the proper ac- 

 centuation the author wishes to say more,* as the specific names in this volume 



* The explanations given in this discussion may not agree with most Latin grammars 

 in English, but the author thinks that this is because the English grammarians consciously 

 or unconsciously interpret constructions in Latin according to the models of the highly 

 individualized English language. 



