181 



Piper's Flora on the other hand includes 76 genera ncit men- 

 tioned b>' Henry, of whicii only 3 {Syntherisma, Dipsanis and 

 Cnicus) are introduced. The hirj2;est indigenous genus not 

 represented in Henry is Sitanion with 11 species. Next to this is 

 Capnorea with 5, Sphaerostigma and Frasera with 4, Ilemicar- 

 pha, Ilorkelia, Taraxia and Madronella with 3, and Parrya, 

 Thermopsis, Elatine, Pachylophus, Trichostema and Tonellawith 2; 

 59 other genera are represented by a single species. 



The following table represents the discrepancies in the two 

 Floras in the case of a few of the larger genera, particularly of 

 those that reach their widest extension in the Northwest: 



No. Forms No. Forms 

 in Piper in Henry 



No. 

 Common 



Piper Only ! Henry Only 



Poa 33 



Carex 108 



Juncus 33 



Salix 23 



Eriogonum 28 



Polygonum 34 



Ranunculus 30 



Arabis 20 



Saxifraga 18 



Potenlilla 29 



Lupiniis 35 



Astragalus 33 



Viola 20 



Lomatiiim 23 



Pentslemon 27 



Aster ! 32 



Erigeron 1 25 



Senecio ! 31 



27 

 140 

 31 

 39 

 10 

 30 

 34 

 12 

 32 

 28 

 22 

 19 

 23 

 II 

 12 

 27 

 37 

 32 



61 

 24 

 18 



6 

 24 

 21 

 10 

 12 

 18 

 15 

 13 

 15 



9 

 10 

 16 

 18 

 17 



15 

 52 

 10 

 7 

 23 

 12 



9 

 10 



7 



8 

 20 

 20 



6 

 15 

 17 

 16 



8 

 14 



9 

 65 



4 

 6 



13 



2 



20 



10 



19 



These figures seem to show that in genera with a predominantly 

 northern range, Henry's total of local species will exceed Piper's; 

 while in those with a southern range the converse will be true. 

 In the case of Carex, about all that seems to be illustrated is 

 the fact that neither author had been able to make an exhaus- 

 tive study of the genus or arrive at any clear understanding of 

 its species. It is to be hoped that the much-needed clearing- 

 up of this difificult problem will be attained by the careful work 

 which K. K. Mackenzie is now doing on the genus. In matters 

 of form and technique, which with a few notable exceptions 

 remain the weak point of American authors, the reviewer re- 



