15 
woody portion, is not so stout as that of the strawberry. Among 
the trees of the Rocky Mountains are enumerated Pyrus sam- 
bucifolia, an Asiatic species, Cupressus guadalupensis, a tree 
of Lower California, Sapindus marginatus, one from Florida, 
and Prunus angustifolia, the Chickasaw Plum, a tree of unknown 
origin, naturalized in eastern United States. On page 254, 
in the list of plants common to the Sierra Nevada, the Cascade 
Mountains, and the Rocky Mountains, are given among others: 
Antennaria dioica and Arabis hirsuta, two European plants. 
The only plant of the A. dioica group common to those regions 
is А. rosea, and the American representative of Arabis hirsuta 
is A. ovata Poir. Further are enumerated Arnica Chamis- 
sonis, a strictly boreal plant, and Spraguea umbellata, a plant 
confined to the Sierras and neighboring mountains, and repre- 
sented in the Rockies by S. multiceps Howell. On page 249, 
Spiraea betulifolia is given as transcontinental. The species 
is Siberian. The only close relative it has on this continent is 
S. Steveni, an Alaskan species. .S. splendens (= 5. arbuscula) of 
California and Oregon, S. lucida aand SS. densiflora of the Rockies 
and S. corymbosa of the Alleghenian region, all of which have 
been confused with .S. betulifolia, have erect instead of reflexed 
sepals. Among the alpine plants of the Rockies are enumerated 
on page 192 Smelowskia calycina, a Siberian plant, on page 193 
Sausurea alpina and on page 194 Androsace Chamaejasme, both 
European plants. These are represented in the Rocky Moun- 
tains by Smelowskia americana and S. ovalis, Sausurea densa and S. 
remotifolia, and Androsace carinata. On page 248 are enumerated 
among the immigrants from the northwest (Italics mine): Alnus 
incana, Kalmia glauca, and Vaccinium Myrtillus, all north- 
eastern plants, represented in the Rockies by Alnus tenuifolia, 
Kalmia microphylla, and Vaccinium oreophilum and V. scoparium. 
A good phytogeographer should not have made errors like 
these. It is not necessary that he should be a taxonomist of 
the "finely splitting kind," so that he, of his own accord, should 
see all those fine distinctions drawn by systematists nowadays, 
but he should keep up with the progress of taxonomy enough, so 
that he would not use determinations made by Tom, Dick, and 
