135 



ful. River scenes and other miscellaneous rural landscapes with 

 a fern of some sort placed in one corner apparently as an after- 

 thought or adaptation of the artist do not bring out the true re- 

 lations of the ferns to their surroundings as might easily have 

 been accomplished with a camera. 



It is of course natural to bring this book into contrast with 

 others of its class and particularly with Mrs. Parsons' How to 

 Know the Ferns. It contains more folk-lore, gives evidence of 

 more research into the old literature of ferns, presents more proof 

 of an accurate familiarity with ferns in the field, contains less 

 personal narrative, and its structural illustrations are a decided 

 improvement. As a piece of book-making and artistic illus- 

 tration it is also superior when that feature is considered from an 

 artistic instead of a scientific standpoint. But as a means of 

 knowing our ferns which is professedly one of its reasons for be- 

 ing, it lacks some features of arrangement that have rendered 

 Mrs. Parsons' effort very successful. 



For an untechnical book, the matter of nomenclature figures 

 too prominently and the author may well feel the uncertainty he 

 cannot conceal that the nomenclature he uses is either correct or 

 final. To the majority of the class of people to whom the book 

 will appeal it matters little what names they find so long as they 

 have a Latin sound, for those who study ferns for more than a 

 passing amusement will find in standard manuals the prevailing 

 and proper nomenclature. It shows poor taste for a professed 

 "conservative" to propose such a combination as " Matteuccia 

 Struthiopteris Pennsylvania!" in advance of a proven necessity 

 and contrary to his profession of belief. It betokens weakness of 

 position and insincere principles, and besides could not be used 

 since the earliest name of the American form if distinct from the 

 European is not Pennsylvania a. From a botanical standpoint 

 changes in nomenclature in a work professedly untechnical are 

 inexcusable anyway. — L. M. Underwood. 



Columbia University, 6 Nov. 1901. 



