January 8, 1897.] 



SCIENCE. 



63 



part of the collector. The effect of this want of 

 care in preparing labels is manifest in the work 

 under consideration, in which the geographical 

 distribution of the species is given, but the 

 range is often limited to the material examined 

 by the author. Errors in the recorded distri- 

 bution of plants may, and often do, arise from 

 incorrect determinations of species. There is 

 an example of this given under Danthonia seri- 

 cea Nutt., the range of which is recorded as 

 ' New England to Florida, Colorado and Cali- 

 fornia.' This species does not occur west of 

 the Mississippi, the Western grasses referred to 

 it belonging to other species. The occurrence 

 of Alopecurus alpinus within the limits of the - 

 United States is doubtful. The specimens from 

 the Rocky Mountains in the National Herbarium 

 referred to that species are all A. occidentalis 

 Scribn. Sporobolus beevif alius (Nutt.) Scribn. 

 {Vilfa cuspidata Torr.) does not occur east of 

 Ohio ; there are no specimens in the National 

 Herbarium from east of Missouri and Minne- 

 sota. The grass from Northern Maine referred 

 to this species is a slender form of Sporobolus 

 depauperatus named by Trinius Vilfa richard- 

 sonis. This form extends westward to the 

 Rocky Mountains. 



The scientific author employs figures to illus- 

 trate facts or to more clearly demonstrate his 

 written statements. The author and not the 

 artist is held responsible for their correctness^ 

 The reader has little interest in the artist unless 

 his work possesses some special merit for which 

 he has received general recognition, such as ac- 

 curacy gained through a knowledge of the sub- 

 ject illustrated. This matter is here referred 

 to because of the constant citation by the au- 

 thor of 'Grasses of North America,' of the 

 draughtsmen who executed the figures used by 

 him, and because of a few mistakes which these 

 citations apparently render the present writer 

 in some degree responsible. 



Fig. 11, on page 35, is Blepharidachne kingii (S. 

 Wats.) Hackel (Eremochloe kingii S. Wats.) 

 and not Eremochloa leersioides (Munro) Hack. 

 Blepharidachne is a genus of two species closely 

 related to Triodia, and is omitted from the work. 



Fig. 20 on page 77 is not Arundinella palmeri 

 as stated. A, in the figure, is a spikelet of 

 A. brasiliensis ; a, is the floret of the same. B, 



is a spikelet of A. deppeana, and b, a floret of 

 the same. 



Fig. 22, on page 96, does not illustrate Pas- 

 palum floridanum, bvit is the reproduction of a 

 drawing copied in part from Trinius and de- 

 signed to illustrate P. setaceum Michx. 



Fig. 37, on page 178, is incorrectly explained. 



A, is a spikelet of Somalocenchrus oryzoides, and 

 a, is a spikelet of S. monandrus, and not a floret 

 of R. oryzoides, as stated. 



Fig. 41, page 229, illustrates a spikelet of 

 Stipa richardsonii Link, and not- Oryzopsis 

 macounii (Scribn.) Beal. Stipa richardsonii Link 

 appears to have been omitted from the work. 



Fig. 53, on page 316, is said to be ' Epicampes 

 maeroura.' The drawing was made to illus- 

 trate a spikelet of a grass (No. 3335 Pringle) 

 which was doubtfully referred to Epicampes 

 bourgaei Fourn., described on page 310. 



Fig. 109, on page 525, was drawn by Scrib- 

 ner, but figure 81, on page 440, designed to il- 

 lustrate Opizia stolonifera, was not. 



Fig. 76, on page 527, is not ' Bouteloua 

 texana,' but Bouteloua trisena Scribn. in Proc. 

 Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. (1891), p. 307. 



Fig. 117, on page 627, illustrates parts of a 

 spikelet of Brachypodium pinnatum var. cses- 

 pitosum (No. 3443 Pringle), described in Proc. 

 Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. (1891) p. 305, and not 



B. mexicanum, as stated. 



Fig. 118, page 632, illustrates some parts of 

 Jouvea pilosa (Presl) Scribn., and not Jouvea 

 straminea Fourn., which is figured in Bull. Torr. 

 Bot. Club, 23 : pi., 266. 



There are in the work about 160 new names, 

 specific and varietal, arising partly from the 

 system of nomenclature adopted, partly from 

 the shifting of species from one genus to an- 

 other and the reduction of species to varieties, 

 or the elevation of varieties to species, and 

 partly from the publication of new species. 

 There are about forty species named and de- 

 scribed, which have heretofore been unpub- 

 lished, or at least unidentified, and are pre- 

 sumably new species. These are chiefly Mexi- 

 can grasses, and, for the most part, occur in the 

 collections of Mr. C. G. Pringle, the names in 

 nearly all cases being those under which the 

 species were distributed. Among the species 

 described as new are the following : 



