288 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [ APRIL 
If it seems best to give copious bibliography under one species, they do not 
feel it essential to cite for symmetry an equal amount of almost meaningless 
references under another. 
e paper brings together in convenient form the results of considerable 
scattered activity, and the extent of recent work upon the group may be 
inferred from some introductory statistics. In 1880 Mr. Hemsley enu- 
merated in the Biologia Centrali-Americani 25 genera and 76 species of 
Umbelliferz. Messrs. Coulter and Rose — who, to the territory covered by 
Hemsley’s work, add Lower California— recognize 39 genera and 182 species, 
including about 40 which are here described for the first time. It is interest- 
ing to note that this considerable increase in known species is about propor- 
tionate to the similar additions in the gamopetalous Mexican genera, which 
have been recently revised. It testifies not merely to the unforeseen wealth 
of the Mexican flora but also to the success of the many skilled collec- 
tors who, during the last two decades, have explored its vegetation with such 
diligence. Among these may be mentioned especially Messrs. Pringle, Palmer, ; 
J. D. Smith, Brandegee, Altamirano, Millspaugh & Gaumer, Nelson & Gold-_ 
man, Rose, Hartman & Lloyd, L. C. Smith, Conzatti & Gonzalez, C. L. Smith, 
Dugés, and Lamb. 
The Umbelliferzee form a very natural group in which floral structure is 
remarkably constant. In their paucity of floral characters oH! may be com: 
pared to the Cruciferae and, like them, have for the most part good species, 
comparatively few varieties, and —— neglectis) technical rather than 
convincingly natural genera. It i a group, in fact, ‘where numberless 
generic changes could be easily and sfavathly initiated by anyone with a con-, 
scious or unconscious fenchant for disagreement with his predecessors. The 
work of the present authors, however, is distinctly constructive rather than 
revolutionary. 
a paper where many names are cited a few slips are well-nigh inev- 
itable ; thus in the present instance Seeman, Couthony, and A. L. Smith have 
an unfamiliar look. The many specific names, which the authors have been 
obliged to coin, are mostly the simple and familiar descriptive terms of the 
glauca, serrata, and rigida type, with no such unscholarly linguistic jumbles 
as pseudoparvifilora, heterappendiculata, Saxifragopsis, parvicarpum, XC» 
which have of late so frequently marred the publications from other American 
botanical establishments, although rarely found in the writings of our more 
classical transatlantic colleagues. Another point which merits special mention 
is the scrupulous care with which the authors have avoided the publication of 
manuscript or herbarium names in their synonymy—a useless practice which, : 
notwithstanding the emphatic protest of Mr. B. Daydon Jackson and others, 
is still too prevalent. | 
The revision is ees by ten excellent plates and numerous text 
cuts.— B. L. Rosin 
