64 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [JULY 
A matter of punctuation: In harmony with the general practice at pres- 
ent, Dr. Rydberg writes Mimulus Lewis Pursh, Fl. Am. Sept., but writes 
Monniera rotundifolia Michx. Fl. Bor. Am. The query in my mind is, if we 
use a comma to separate the author’s name from the name of the publication 
in one case, why not in the other? The period is a part of the abbreviated 
name and does not set it off from the name of the publication. Why not 
write M/. rotundifolia Michx., Fl]. Bor. Am.? 
In most instances the approximate altitudinal range for the species is 
given, a practice to be commended, though such statements must always be 
allowed some additional variation, since so much depends upon the exposure 
and general conformation of the country. Especially is this true where but 
few collections are at hand upon which to base the statement. On this 
account it is sometimes a little amusing to note that a definite range is some: 
times given when but a single collection was known, as for instance in 
Atriplex hastata, Grayia spinosa, Abronia Jragrans, Washingtonia longistylis, 
As mere slips, typographical or otherwise, may be noted the following: 
On p. 130 Shoshone lake is accredited to Montana; on p- 184 the notes 
speak of Sophia canescens, though I think the Sisymbrium canescens Nutt. has 
never been transferred to that genus; on p. 417 Balsamorrhiza sagittata 
Nutt. should be B. sagittata (Pursh) Nutt.; on p. 377 the not Pursh follow 
ing Valeriana paucifiora Hook. should read not Michx.; on p. 386 the Sol 
dago multiradiata listed is more probably S. mudtiradiata scopulorum. \t 
may be noted, too, that in some instances the notes upon a species are not 
in accord with the name. While the F/ora was going through the press it 
became necessary to change from the original name selected, and the notes 
Were not altered to correspond. In one or two instances A. Nelson is cred- 
st with a species that belongs to E. Nelson, ¢. g., Pella occidentalis, P. 
466. oe 
Of course the author uses the Engler and Prantl arrangement which cal ; 
scarcely fail of universal approval. The application of the Rochester rules 
has resulted in the displacement of some of the familiar names, and even 1 
one who thoroughly believes in the principle of priority it is a source at 
regret that it should necessitate so many changes, . 
All errors aside, the volume before us, with its nearly five hundred octavo’ 
pages, will preve invaluable to the working botanist, and will also prove v: 
interest and service to the amateur, 
the territory covered, 
though it is not put out as a manual # 
It reflects great credit upon the author, and is be 
honor to the New York Botanical Garden from which it is issued as Volume — 
I of its Memoirs. The excellent paper, luxurious type, and broad margins é 
make it a pleasure to the eye.—AVEN NELSON - 
