1898] CURRENT LITERATURE 371 
nents dealing with the floral covering of Nebraska from the phytogeographic 
gandpoint. The authors follow very largely the methods of Drude, especially 
ssoutlined in his Phanzengeographie von Deutschland. 
The introduction discusses the relation between phytogeography and biol- 
wy, and gives an interesting history of the investigation of the Nebraska 
fora. The first chapter is introductory, dealing with the physiognomy and 
dimatology of the state. The second chapter is entitled “ Statistic and 
regional limitation,” and after the enunciation of certain general principles 
there is to be found a characterization of the four regions into which the 
authors subdivide the state: the wooded bluff and meadow land, prairie, 
snd-hill and foothill regions. Then follow lists of species in which these 
mgions agree and differ. The third chapter, the “Vegetation forms of the 
fora,” is of great interest. The authors at this point depart somewhat from 
Dmde’s classification, but such departure seems almost inevitable in view of 
the great difference between the life conditions in Germany and Nebraska. 
The main subdivisions are into woody plants, half-shrubs, pleiocyclic herbs, 
tapaxanthous herbs, water plants, hysterophytes, thallophytes. These 
soups are quite intimately subdivided, especially the pleiocyclic herbs and 
thallophytes, The next chapter has to do with the ‘“ Ecological and biolog- 
W@l relations of the natural groups.” The pteridophytes and spermato- 
- are discussed in successive groups with regard to habitat, or 
Warming would say, they are referred to their respective plant societies. 
~The fifth and last chapter treats of the “ Plant formations of the state.” 
These are quite fully treated and are, of course, full of interest to plant 
: sographers. Perhaps the most distinctive formations are those of the sand 
: _ vay their bunch grasses, blow outs, and sand draws; and of the foot- 
ils, with their undershrubs, mats, and rosettes. 
_ Inasmuch as this is the pioneer work of its kind in America, the task of 
8 authors was peculiarly difficult. Questions of terminology in ecological 
j ry new, 
fo 88 to be, for example, a strong tendency to use 
Wh : 
: i the simpler and more expressive 
| the a. but because there is a radical ecological i cae 
a Gell allus and the moss gametophyte. The rejec®™ 
Sever “ophyte is very questionable, since it invol 
new terms and destroys the unity of the classificat 
