BOOK REVIEW 211 



The type L. Lunellii seems to me capable of demanding a place of 

 its own. 



The only one of our species derived from the area west of the 

 102nd mer. is Ranunculus Waldronii, a relative of A. glaberrimus 

 of the west. Dr. Greene's A. ellipticus was mentioned as syn- 

 onymous of this, but our plant was not noticed at all, though its 

 much stronger characters than those of Dr. Greene's species might 

 have secured for it a better fate. 



I am gratified noting Lobelia strictiflora (Rydb.) Lunell, and the 

 reverse Anlhopogon tonsus (Lunell) Rydb., also Solidago dumctorum 

 Lunell which we did not expect to be found so far "from home." 



Aragallus angustatus Rydb. of 1907, which Dr. Nelson places as 

 synonymous of A. Lamberti, is reinstated in its own right, and has 

 in its turn outflanked our A. Aven-N elsonii of 1908. The case 

 seems to be hopeless as far as .our side is concerned. 



The modified description of Euthamia camporum Greene justifies 

 our variety tricostata, though at the same time it tends to its 

 elimination. 



Rudbeckia ampla A. Nels. is revived again in spite of its author 

 who tried to exterminate his own progeny. Likewise Eleocharis 

 monticola leviseta Fernald has been resuscitated and, it is hoped, 

 will enjoy a long life hereafter. 



Physaria brassicoides Rydb. and all the other "better" names 

 are enthusiastically welcomed. 



The manuals have drawn within North Dakota the lines limiting 

 their areas, except Gray's VII, which is extended west only to the 

 96th mer. Of the others Gray's VI is limited to the west and Coulter's 

 to the east by the 100th mer. Likewise have Britton's to the west 

 and A. Nelson's and Rydberg's to the east their lines of demarkation 

 drawn on the 102nd mer. This condition of being in relation to the 

 manuals a border state, a frontier state, a buffer state, has appar- 

 ently been the cause why North Dakota has never been favored by 

 the manual writers enough to become spoiled. The direct reference 

 of a plant to N. D. has been quite a rare occurrence, but if its 

 presence has been suggested by 'Man. — S. D., or Man.- — Neb., 

 or Man. — Tex.,' we have been well satisfied. 'Minn. — Colo., or 

 Sask. — Ariz., or Mont. — N. Mex.' have inspired the imagination 

 to work in curved lines, but not everybody is inclined to trace any 

 increased number of plants from such a kind of calculation! 



