1896] EDITORIALS 337 
very much whether the editor of that journal knew that it had already 
been published. Its importance did not justify republication. The 
paper was received by the GazETTe through Dr. Goodale, whom the 
author requested to have it published in an American journal, with no 
intimation that he was sending another copy elsewhere. This is not 
the first time that the GazeTre has been imposed upon in this way, 
which speaks better for the faith of the editors in botanists than for the 
good faith of the authors. Certainly common honesty requires that 
authors give editors an opportunity to refuse papers which they expect 
to duplicate thus. 
IF WE ARE not mistaken, the publication of one paper stating fully 
the nature and results of a research ought to end publication until 
further research has been made and new results reached. Some 
eminent botanists have in late years followed a different course, and 
have worked over the same studies into three or four different papers 
* different journals. But if results are of real value one adequate pub- 
lication is all they need to receive recognition and all that ought to be 
unloaded upon already burdened bibliographers. We go so far as to 
Say that the “ preliminary paper” with its half prepared diagnoses or 
ill-digested generalizations is an unmixed evil and ought to be sup- 
pivered by botanical opinion. We are glad to join Matural Science in 
its vigorous Opposition to such makeshift methods. 
