187 



are lacking. Instead, notes such as the following are frequently 

 inserted at the end of the description of the typical form : " Here 

 regarded as consisting of numerous slightly differing races, 

 perhaps including the five following described as species."* In 

 this fashion, or by the raising of old varieties to specific rank, 

 hundreds of varietal names that appeared in the first edition, 

 are, for taxonomic purposes, obliterated. The authors have 

 felt that these forms or races are worthy of notice, hardly of 

 nomenclatorial recognition. This feature undoubtedly simplifies 

 the problem, but to the old-line describer of plants, the stickler 

 for varietal characterization, it will seem almost like an evasion. 

 That the method here followed is an eminently sane and practic- 

 able one, seems almost axiomatic when we remember that, in 

 a flora as rich and variable as our own, there is simply no limit to 

 the ingenious fecundity of acute observers in describing and 

 naming so-called varietal forms. Such things have happened in 

 the past, notably in the genera, — but charity forbids the dis- 

 closure of the groups that have been fair game for these sharp 

 practitioners. It is unquestionably with something like real 

 relief that the average user of the present work will greet the 

 altogether practical, and pragmatic, method of disposing of this 

 problem. 



The wholly modern tendency to subdivide existing genera and 

 families into smaller and smaller categories is a movement to which 

 the authors have lent the weight of their great authority through- 

 out the present work. They have split up many large, often 

 unwieldy groups, into smaller, and presumably more manage- 

 able units. There are good arguments for the old method of 

 making large genera and families with a liberal use of sub- 

 generic and subfamily headings; there are equally good, 

 or better, arguments for making smaller and tighter cate- 

 gories. Most of us, suckled on the old manuals, have clung 

 tenaciously to old ideas, but the attempt to keep always an 

 open mind to the many advantages of the newer method has 

 forced us into more or less of a dilemma. The new edition will 

 unrloLibledly settle this perplexing question for some of us who 



* See Aster macro phyllus, Vol. 3, p. 411. 



