CORRECTION NEEDING CORRECTION [3 
was seen at the same time in a number of individuals. One of 
these had beside the normal one-flowered about six others with 
two .or three subsessile flowers in the bracts. In one instance the 
third flower was neutral having “‘sepals’’ alone. ‘This condition 
was not one of fasciation as the usual flattened peduncles of 
greater diameter in one way were absent and the stalks appeared 
no different than in normal. In several cases the usual three 
bracts were present and the supernumerary flowers came from 
these in umbel fashion. In one case two flowers were found at 
the end of a common pedicel (bracts some distance below) and 
on a common receptacle or double torus. In several the outer 
bracts of the cluster were 2 to 3-lobed or notched. ‘The several 
flowers had very distinct pedicels nearly all with their own 
secondary bracts and only one bractless. In another a bent one- 
bracted node or joint was found at the base of the several pedicels 
of the umbel-lke cluster. Still, another more peculiar specimen 
consisted of a peduncle with a larger bract near the top. From 
the axis of this arose two pedicels, one with a normal flower, the 
other with two flowers on a common torus. The larger of these 
two had three three-nothced bracts and the other two three- 
notched bracts at the apex. 
A CORRECTION NEEDING CORRECTION. 
Some years ago the term macrospore for the larger non- 
sexual speciallized reproductive cell of the heterosporous pter- 
idophyta was found objectionable because the name was deemed 
inaccurate in meaning. ‘lhe word (ax Q0s (macros) in Greek 
means “‘long’’ and the spores in question are not long but large, 
or big. It might have been thought by some more or less con- 
servative botanists of the “‘laissez faire’ type that the attempt 
at correction might be considered as fastidiousness. Scientists, 
however ought to be exact especially in their terminology, though 
an equally industrious attempt to correct nomenclature usually 
raises a clamor among the morphologists who carp at continual 
name changing. Be this as it may, the object in question suggests 
rather the idea of largeness, and hence ought to have come from 
the Greek word péyas (megas). ‘The name was accordingly 
changed to ‘“‘megaspore”’ and in a few months it was even enthu- 
siastically received by all without exception, and, as far as we 
