129 



egories. And it is an unwelcome surprise that a state of the 

 historical antiquity of Connecticut, should not long ago have 

 passed through this necessary, but confessedly preliminary, stage 

 of the mere cataloging of plants and their known points of occur- 

 rence. 



Taking the work as it is, however, and not as we had hoped it 

 might be, it is a genuine pleasure to record its comprehensive and 

 conservative treatment of the plants of the state. Only such 

 plants are admitted into the list as have been seen by at least one 

 of the members of the committee.* It is, then, certain that the 

 plants listed m the catalog are all to be found in the state. 



Much less certain are "some localities, . . . [which] rest upon 

 the authority of collectors alone, when the species is once defi- 

 nitely admitted and there is no reason to doubt identity." While 

 the present generation may be willing to accept such records, as 

 in the majority of cases they are probably perfectly authentic, 

 what must be the attitude of our successors in the work ? If it is 

 anything like our attitude towards the work of our predecessors, 

 it will be a fine scepticism towards any station listed for which an 

 accessible specimen is not extant. There is a long list of plants 

 which the authors have excluded from the list on this reasoning, 

 and they have even excluded some weeds of more or less fugitive 

 character. These are all listed in a copious appendix. 



From a taxonomic standpoint the work is shot through and 

 through with the traditions of the Cambridge botanists, thus em- 

 bodying the conservative and reasonable treatment of our eastern 

 plants that is presented in the new Gray manual, so called. Any 

 attempt to review the whole taxonomy of the work is impossible 

 in such a short article but a few points call for comment. 



In the genus Potainogeton the P. buplairoides Fernald is ad- 

 mitted while the P. perfoliatiis L. is not credited to the state. Even 

 if one grants the specific validity of this coast segregate of Pro- 

 fessor Fernald (which N. Am. Flora denies) what becomes of the 

 inland forms of the P. perfoliatiis L. as understood in the new 

 sense ? Specimens in the herbarium at New York from Litchfield 

 are certainly true P. perfoliaUis L. 



* The gentlemen who have prepared this work are C. B. Graves, E. H. Eames, C. 

 H. Bissell, L. Andrews, E. B. I larger, and C. Weatherby. 



