196 AMERICAN MIDLAND NATURALIST. 
would be a difficult one, for it would require a careful study of 
the prominent authors of that period. The method of descrip- 
tion of two centuries ago presupposes an intimate knowle ge of 
the older masters, and their terminology. This is readily seen 
if we examine Banister’s second species: Alsine Becabungae folio. 
The expression serves both as a name and as a description, wherein 
a knowledge of another plant, Veronica beccabunga, is prerequisite. 
Among the species which are readily recognized, we may 
mention a few; Castanea pumila racemoso fructu parvo in singulis 
capsulis echinatis unico. The Chinquapin, is our common Casta- 
nea pumila; Clematis purpurea repens petalis florum coriaceis is 
Clematis viorna L., while Clematis erecta, humilis non ramosa, 
folus subrotundis, flore unico ochroleuco is Clematis ochroleuca. 
Dens caninus flore luteo which is blooming now in our beautiful 
woods, is none other than the dog's tooth violet —Erythronium 
americanum. ‘The old name of this plant has evidently survived 
in popular nomenclature. 
Filix mas rachi seu nervo medio alato is evidently Phegop- 
teris hexagonoptera and the very interesting little walking fern, 
Camptosorus rhizophyllus cannot be disguised under its Banisterian 
name—Phyllitis parva saxatilis per summitates folii prolifera. 
Banister mentions all of our species of Araceae except the 
very few rare forms. : i 
The genus Quercus is interesting. Here we find a clear case 
of popular names translated into Latin: " Quercus variae species, 
1. Pumila, 2. Alba, 3. Rubra, 4. Hispanica, 5. Castaneae folio, 
6. Lini aut Salicis foliis, 7. Fruticosa.” 
Ulmus fructu Lupulino is our common Iron-wood—Osirya 
virginiana. 
In the December number of 7»rreya * Dr. Barnhart, discussing 
"Some American Botanists of Former Days," reproduces for the 
"first page of Banister's Catalogue" what really is the title page 
of the second volume of the ‘‘Flora Virginica’’ of Gronovius. That 
the reproduction in Torreya is not Banister's first page seems self- 
evident, aud we wonder how such a mistake was allowed in print. 
We herewith reproduce part of the real “first page.” 
.. * Torreya, Vol. 9, No. 12, p. 243. 
