36 Muhlenbergia, Volume 6 



fusion which may have arisen concerning it. Under L. laxi 

 florns Dougl. are given five possible synonyms. The presence 

 of this species within the range may be doubted, for its type was 

 collected on the lower Columbia river, and most of the peren- 

 nial lupines have a rather limited range. Two of the supposed 

 synonyms, L. argentinns Rydb. and L. Helleri Greene, are cer- 

 tainly distinct from each other, and I feel equally certain that 

 neither of them is L. laxifiorus. 



If, as one may infer from the paragraph quoted above, the 

 book has been made conservative in order to "make it more ser- 

 viceable to the general user," it seems to me that it has been 

 done from a mistaken point of view. The theory is quite gen- 

 erally held that for the amateur or beginner any sort of jumb- 

 ling and mixing together is sufficient, and that all he needs is 

 an approximate knowledge of things; that anything precise and 

 exact is not necessary. The amateur and the professional should 

 be treated exactly alike when it comes to writing floras. Var- 

 ious "botanies" and "floras" might be cited which contain cer- 

 tain common or widespread species only, selected from the whole 

 because they are representative. As a result, the users of these 

 books often get hold of related species and give them wrong 

 names, or are utterly unable to determine the plant at hand. It 

 is a distinctly bad habit, and the sooner we quit it, the better. 



The book is unique, for a manual, in that the place of pub- 

 lication of the species is cited. This is a very valuable feature, 

 and is greatly to be commended. If one wishes to consult the 

 original description of any species found in the book, he has 

 here a ready reference. This manual will certainly prove very 

 useful, and is a welcome addition to our botanicnl literature. 



