18 The Botanical Gazette. [January, 
characters given by the author do not separate it from P. 
capillare L. As to the synonymy given, there must be con- 
siderable doubt until the type specimens of Pursh, Torrey and 
Bernhardi have been examined and compared with the form 
which we believe to be the variety minus Muhlenberg. 
There is the same doubt concerning the validity of ‘‘Pani- 
cum boreale n. sp.” In the manuals it is included under P. 
aichotomum L., being more closely related to that than to P. 
laxifiorum Lam. It certainly does not deserve specific rank, 
as it is only one of many forms that go to make up the spe- 
cies dichotomum. It is well named and perhaps deserves to 
be separated out as a form or variety. That can only be de- 
termined after a study of all the material obtainable. Here 
the true /rophorus at the National Herbarium, but failed to 
recognize it. He has increased and obscured the synonymy 
of Setaria by an addition of four names. 
wish to enter a protest against the use of the word ‘‘scale” 
in describing the bracts of a grass inflorescence. The tef- 
minology most generally adopted by systematic botanists is 
that proposed by Bentham.® It has been adopted because of 
the great confusion caused by the various authors using dif- 
ferent terms to denote the same organs. Morphologically — 
these glumes are not scales. Each spikelet is a reduce 
branch. The empty glumes and the flowering glume are leaf 
sheaths. The palea is a prophyllum. The flower is lateral and 
*®Linnaea 31: 420. 1861-62. 
7Rel. Haenk. 1: 319. 1830. 
*Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 18: 502, 1877, 
