oe January 21, on 
1897] CURRENT LITERATURE 219 
man’s day. To make the distribution of the greatest value the active 
cooperation of botanists is necessary, as extensive collections from different 
parts of the country should be in the hands of the authors. The subscription 
price for each decade is seventy- pil cents, which may be sent to Clara E. 
Cummings, Wellesley, Mass.—}. M. C. 
IT APPEARS like a relic of the ancient artificial systems to separate an 
‘“‘arborescent flora” from the other plants of a country, but when the Division 
of Forestry prepares a work on nomenclature it has no choice in the matter. 
Mr. George B. Sudworth, dendrologist of the Division, has prepared an 
extensive bulletin® which presents the mass of synonymy that belongs to our 
arborescent plants and adds largely to it. It is coming to be apparent that 
laws of nomenclature, like most laws, are not so important as their inter- 
pretation, and that a code to be effective for uniformity must be followed up 
by rulings that will embrace the widest possible combination of conditions. 
Mr. Sudworth also seeks to unify the popular names, so that when a west- 
erm man calls upon New England for honey locust he will not get locust. 
Mr. Sudworth has been of great service in bringing together such a 
of references, a very necessary work, but one from which almost any botanist 
naturally shrinks. Whether he has associated these names properly or not 
in his synonymy remains for monographers to decide. The introduction of 
new varietal, specific, and generic names is the ogra eis of any conan 
undertaking, but so far as they are ; 
purely mechanical they do not lead ia greater simplification a ‘ieuiclaeene: 
It is a question whether our knowledge of plants in general and their litera- 
ture will ever be so complete that even the majority of changes can be 
mechanical. But these are thoughts suggested by the problem of nomen- 
clature in general, and not by Mr. Sudworth’s work in particular, which shows 
a large amount of painstaking labor, and is certainly a valuable contribution 
to the soar caia xe of our arborescent plants.—J. M. C. 
THE REPORT of the Pennsylvania Forestry Commission” has recently 
appeared. The commission consisted of two members, Mr. Wm. F, Shunk, 
an engineer, who discusses the water sheds and waterflow of the state and 
the relation of forest cover thereto, and Dr. J. T. Rothrock, botanist, who is 
responsible for much the greater part of me volume. The commission was _ 
charged with the duty of making a preliminary survey of the forestry 
interests of the state, and it has been BOT by a well organized depart- 
ment, with Dr. Rothrock in charge of forestry. ‘The report has for its object 
: egirwing GEORGE B.—Nomenclature of the arborescent flora of the United Shp 
States. Bulletin 4, Division of foes? Department Agriculture, pp. viii at es 
* Report of the Dep acwh ok Agriculture, Part II. . Di ision | (r restry. 1895. 
