SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVI. No. 916 



Erianthus alopecuroides " Gray Man. Ed. I. 

 616. 1848," appears as a synonym under E. 

 saccharoides, though the original author of 

 the former was Elliot in 1816. This method 

 of citation lacks precision. On seeing the 

 above citation one might justly infer that 

 Gray's Manual is the original place of publica- 

 tion of Erianthus alopecuroides. This, how- 

 ever, is not the idea the author wished to 

 convey. What he does mean is that in Gray's 

 Manual the name E. alopecuroides Ell. was 

 erroneously applied to E. saccharoides. Au- 

 thors have recognized this lack of definiteness 

 and have attempted in various ways to avoid 

 it. Some would write the reference E. alope- 

 curoides "Ell.," QTajM.a.n. 616. 1848. Others, 

 E. alopecuroides Ell. err. det. Gray (cf. Piper, 

 " Flora of Washington," Contr. Nat. Herb., 

 Vol. 11). I have used this, E. alopecuroides 

 [Ell. misapplied by] Gray, Man. Some would 

 place original references in one category and 

 misapplications and secondary references in 

 another, or make a statement in a note that 

 Gray (Man. 616) described this species under 

 E. alopecuroides Ell. I do not wish here to 

 recommend especially any of the above meth- 

 ods, but only to insist on the necessity of dis- 

 tinguishing between the two categories of cita- 

 tions, publication and misapplication. 



Mr. Stone has used for the citation of au- 

 thors the method rather generally adopted by 

 zoologists, in which only one author is given 

 and that one the author of the specific name. 

 The great majority of botanists cite at least 

 the author of the accepted combination of 

 genus and species, and often also the author 

 of the specific name if published originally 

 under a dWerent genus. Under Uniola we 

 find Uniola laxa (L.), showing that Linnaeus 

 gave the specific name laxa under a different 

 genus. In the list of synonyms given by 

 Mr. Stone we see that Linnseus described the 

 species as Eolcus laxus. In the list of syn- 

 onyms also appears Uniola laxa Britton 294, 

 but this is only a reference to localities given 

 in Britton's " Catalogue of Plants of New 

 Jersey " (I had some difficulty in determining 

 the meaning of this reference), and not to the 



original publication of the combination (B. S. 

 P. Prel. Cat. N. Y. 69. 1888). It happens 

 that Mr. Stone has made certain combinations 

 for the first time and hence will be cited by 

 most botanical writers as the author of these 

 combinations. But there is no means of de- 

 termining which of the combinations are new, 

 except by the laborious comparison of each 

 case, since the combination may not appear 

 in the list of synonyms, or if it does the refer- 

 ence may be misleading in this respect. Of 

 course this omission is of no consequence to 

 those who use the zoological method of cita- 

 tion. Mr. Stone probably did not realize the 

 additional difficulties he was placing in the 

 way of the indexer when he decided to omit all 

 indications by which the new combinations 

 could be distinguished. Among the grasses 

 the following new combinations are made: 

 Paspalum Iceve circulare (Nash) Stone, Pani- 

 cum commonsianum addisonii (Nash) Stone, 

 Chcetochloa imherhis versicolor (Bieknell) 

 Stone. 



It is to be noted that Mr. Stone gives the 

 original place of publication of Panicum stipi- 

 taium Nash, as Britton's Manual 83. The 

 name was first used by Scribner (TJ. S. Dept. 

 Agr. Div. Agrost. Bull. lY (ed. 2) : 56. May, 

 1901) where it is credited to " Nash, in Britt. 

 Manual, 83, 1901." This must have been 

 taken from proof sheets, as Britton's Manual 

 did not appear till after August 24, 1901 (the 

 date of the preface). This is mentioned only 

 in reference to the question of the standing of 

 proof sheets as publication. 



As previously stated, these remarks are not 

 intended as a criticism of Mr. Stone or of the 

 excellent flora which he has published. The 

 work suggested the remarks and this oppor- 

 tunity was taken to record certain protests. 



Notes on Genera of Panicece: Agnes Chase 



{Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 19: 183-192, 



21: 1-10, 21: 175-188, 24: 103-160). 



It has long been recognized by agrostolo- 



gists that the classification of the genera of 



grasses is stiU very artificial and greatly 



needs revision. Botanists who have turned 



their attention to this family have been kept 



