6 4^ The West American Scientist. 



TREES AND SHRUBS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, 

 CALIFORNIA. 



In the first bi-ennial report of the CaUfornia State Board of 

 Forestry, (1885 86), I contributed at the request ot Hon. Abbot 

 Kinney, a short paper under the above title. In it I brietly noted 

 the general distribution in the county, of the ligneous plants that 

 were known to me; thus it was necessarily incomplete, and some 

 species were omitted as being scarcely worthy of mention. The 

 article was further marred by a multitude of typographical errors 

 and even whole pharagraphs by other authors were wrongly in- 

 serted under my signature. 



Botanical science would not have been seriously affected, how- 

 ever, had the history of this unfortunate paper ended with the 

 report of the California Board. But Hon. B. E. Fernow, chiet 

 of the Forestry division of the U. S. Department ol Agriculture, 

 saw fit to criticise my gratituous work as incomplete, in his second 

 bulletin, (page 198), and, without consulting the writer or others 

 who have had opportunity for an acquaintance with the subject, 

 presented 'a complete list' of the trees and shrubs of San Diego 

 county (pp. 202-5). This 'complete list' was compiled mainly 

 from Watson's Botany of California, by Mr. Geo. B. Sudvvorth, 

 and fully seventy species belonging to our flora was ommitted, and 

 nearly a score of species were erroneously admmitted by him. 

 Thus its scientific value was wholly destroyed, and curiously 

 enough the compiler of this 'complete list' omitted nearly all the 

 species enumerated in my paper, that were not mentioned in 

 Watson's Botany. 



The very evident worthlessness ol this 'complete list' was 

 enough to render criticism almost needless. But now a second 

 edition of Bulletin No. 2, of the Forestry division comes to hand 

 containing a list purporting to be a 'modification of that in the 

 first edition.' In an editorial note the Chief says: 



"The modifications have been made upon the authority of Mr. 

 ' C. R. Orcutt and Dr. S. B. Parish, both of San Diego coun'y, 

 'California. Thanks are ( specially due to Dr. Parish, who is 

 ' writing a flora of this region, for the addition of several unpub- 

 ' lished species. The cacti, and other plants not truly shrubs or 

 ' trees, have been omitted. A few species, however, not always 

 ' woody throughout, have been inserted. The fact that Mr. Kin- 

 ' ney submitted a list confined to San Diego county must explain 

 ' the insertion of such a limited list, while it would have been de- 

 ' sirable to embrace the flora of Los Angeles and San Bernardino 

 ' counties as forming a trvie botanical region. ' ' 



This explanatory note of the Hon. B. E. Fernow is almost as 

 unfortunate as the rest of the history of this article. A letter to 

 the Ciiief criticising the 'complete list' (by which the first edition 

 may most conveniently be designated) with his apDlogetic reply, 

 forms the whole of the correspondence between us, and the mod- 



