1890] OPEN LETTERS 499 
sisting of thirty plants grown from rhizomes taken from the soil during the 
previous year, four two-year-old seedlings and two seedlings (presumably in 
the first year of growth) and a few ill developed seeds, according to his own 
account, in the Botanic Institute at Marburg, May-June 1893. His article 
exhibits no reference to Dr. Bowers’ splendid work, which he has repeated, 
and not always in an accurate manner, since his results are a most striking 
example of the faulty conclusions which may be obtained from material 
under abnormal conditions. Dr. Pohl deals also with the minute anatomy of 
the plant, and the three pages devoted to this subject may be considered as 
the only original portion of his paper. The sections devoted to the system- 
atic position of the species, its drug extracts and their adulterations, may be 
compiled from the common text-books and technical dictionaries, and are 
furthermore notably incomplete. 
It is, of course, safe to assume that Dr. Pohl was unaware of Bowers’ 
work. His ignorance may be directly due to the fact that “the file of the 
BOTANICAL GAZETTE is not to be found in the Marburg Institute,” but it is 
a logical outcome of the assumption that the boundaries of botanical science 
are identical with those of Germany. Our brethren across the water would 
do well to rid themselves of this erroneous idea, once more nearly true than 
at present. Their repeated disregard of outside literature will certainly do 
_ Much to lessen the prestige of the German Institute. 
The above criticisms apply with peculiar force to the editors of the Bzb- 
liotheca Botanica. This publication consists of a series of ‘‘Originalabhand- 
lungen,” and the long interval between issues would certainly allow the 
Verification of the eligibility of any manuscript. A regard for the ethics of 
the science, and simple justice to their subscribers, demands no less.— D. T 
MacDoueat, State University of Minnesota. 
eee re 
Sa 
a 
"i 
