1896] OPEN LETTERS 267 
one of the largest and most valuable collections of plants in the world has 
been built up. The Smithsonian Institution has recently assumed charge of 
this collection, for which it has always been responsible, and thus relieved of 
this part of the work, the division of botany, of the Department of Agricul- 
ture, can continue its important economic investigations on weeds, pure seed, 
the geographic distribution of plants and their relation to environment, etc., 
all of which are distinct from those being pursued by other branches of the 
department. 
Omitting further argument, the chief reasons for maintaining the present 
autonomy of the divisions may be summarized as follows: 
(1) The work of each division is distinct and well defined, having been 
the result of gradual growth and in accordance with the natural development 
of the department as a whole. 
(2) There is no duplication of work, not even in office or routine matters. 
The division of vegetable physiology and pathology may receive and answer 
5,000 letters a year, all of which relate wholly to its work and involve a cer- 
tain amount of labor, which could in no wise be saved by a concentration of 
effort. The same is true of its bibliographical work and such necessary labor 
that must be given to the collection of fungi, representing the economic phase 
of the division’s investigations. 
(3) The chief incentive which keeps good men in the department is that 
they have freedom in their investigation. The men in charge know the 
details of their own lines of work perhaps better than any one that could be 
put overthem. They are in direct touch with the people for whose benefit 
the investigations are made, and it is only since this has been brought about 
that the work of the department in the main has come to be looked upon as 
a credit to the country. The moment the autonomy of the divisions is 
destroyed, which would certainly be the case if the plan proposed were 
fatried out, the principal incentive for good work will be at an end. 
: B. T. Gattoway, Washington, D. C. 
LOCAL FLORAS. 
sa - jae sailor 8 of the Botanical Gazette :—1 am interested in what you 
a = aed 'n regard to the scope of local floras. I agree very heartily 
should © proposition that a local flora should be more than a mere list and 
bien. . be confined by artificial bounds. Everyone who has worked 
in our * 2h — flora has felt this trouble. Much more could be printed 
ever for ey oe for expense of publication. I see no excuse what- 
and th € publication of lists that say nothing about the plants themselves 
* Problems of their distribution, and yet devote hundreds of dollars to 
