9 
that the writers of this Synopsis have by no means made the 
“references to authorities consulted and used” which it is said in 
Dr. Porter’s letter that they have made. For example: the 
generic cgi ie a Brickellia, Townsendia, Macheranthera, 
‘Gutierr a, Bigelov a, Aplopappu 8, Grindelia, Franseria, Helio- 
meris, Dihies tis, Bahia, Tetr adymia, Stephanomeria, ‘Crepis, 
Macrorrhynchus, Orthocarpus, Monardella, _Gilia, Collomia, 
Mirabilis, Abronia, Ginakenas Calochortus, Lloydia, Leucocri- 
num, Vaseya, * Hriocom a, Pleuraphis and forsee der are taken 
with no alterations, save ie ose incidental re eee copying 
(e. g., Bahia), from Mr. Watson’s report, and w o word of 
acknowledgment in any instance. Even when, as i ie cases of 
reference “Benth. and Hook.” is given, the writers have copied 
Bentham and Hooker only from Mr, Watson’s snasesibana amended. 
and always modified translations. To make this plainer yet: in 
Cere Be le s lineari 
arpus tham and Hooker say, “cotyledones lineari- 
elongate, radicula..... Watson says, “ elongated le- 
dons, and inferior radicle.” The autho ynopsis copy 
that they have ever even it the original Latin! The same dis- 
sc coqenea as apn ing ye most copiously also in the specific 
ese are Pe anentias of sel copying 
copying is as real, though the wor ng is slightly varied, are much 
more numerous. One cannot but wish, for the honor o rican 
Botany, that when Dr. Porter said chat “the plan followed in the 
Synopsis is that of Mr. Watson,” he had added, “and much of the 
descriptive matter is also taken from the same work.” 
Dantet C, Eaton. 
New Haven, April 3d, 1874. ; 
* Vaseya comata <ehnd Siete Vasey No. 634. This species surely might 
have been credited to Vase 
