498 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [DECEMBER 
always the most conspicuous part, just as the blade of a leaf is its most 
prominent feature, and it is very generally regarded as the frond itself. The 
term frond, therefore, is generally used in that sense as well as in its own. 
But the objection to this is that in practice it does not express clearly enough 
the exact meaning intended. This is especially true when the term frond is 
used in descriptions of proportion, as for example, when it is said that a frond 
is six inches tall, meaning thereby the leafy portion only, and the length of 
the stalk is given separately at four inches, as if it was distinct from the 
frond, whereas the stalk is an essential part of the frond itself, which would 
be described better by saying that it was ten inches tall, thus including its 
footstalk and giving its true length. Then if the proportion of each part was 
wanted it could be given separately under special terms, and the sum of 
both would conform to the total of the whole.” 
“We may thus avoid all the ambiguity arising from the use of terms in a 
double sense by restricting the term frond to its legitimate definition, and 
employing special terms for the different parts of the frond itself. This 
method will prevail throughout the present work, and whenever the term 
frond is used it is to be understood as meaning the entire leaf, with or with- 
out a stalk. Whenever a stalk is present its presence will be recognized by 
the special term s¢#He, the equivalent of footstalk (Latin s7zZes, plural stipites), 
and the leafy portion will be called the /amina (plural /amine). Thus we 
shall have definitely fixed terms, with clearly defined limitations, no one of 
which can trespass upon the province of the other” (ex Mss. ined. 1881).— 
GEORGE E. Davenport, Medford, Mass. 
DUPLICATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS. 
To the Editors of the Botanical Gazette:—That European botanists 
may occasionally overlook contributions from laboratories on this side of the 
Atlantic if brought out in ephemeral or obscure journals is naturally to be 
expected. The American botanist, in turn, may be pardoned for similar 
mistakes, if not of too frequent occurrence, in regard to publications on the 
other side. The neglect of the literature bearing upon a distinctively Amer- 
ican plant, to be found in the oldest and most widely known botanical 
journal in the country, is a fault not so easily condoned, however. 
Dr. Homer Bowers published in the BoTANICAL GAZETTE’ a thorough 
and accurate account of the morphology and life history of Hydrastis Cana- 
densis, obtained by ten years of work upon the plant, under cultivation, and 
in its habitat in central Indiana. 
Dr. Julius Pohl has recently duplicated this contribution in a manner 
which admits of no extenuation.2 He worked upon a stock of material con- 
* Bot. GAZ. 16:73. 1891. 
* Botanische Mitteilung iiber Hydrastis Canadensis. Bibliotheca Botanica 29, 1894- 
