Se ————— 
FIELD-BOOK OF AMERICAN TREES AND SHRUBS 258 
“there is no reason,” says Mr. Mathews, “ why these should not 
be described with as much exactness as possible.” The chief 
difficulty in doing this is to find words ig Sr to defining the 
various shades of green, evident enough to the observer but 
thre 
combined on one poem These, Sikcces doubtless accurate as 
far as they go, strike us as scarcely adequate: the leaves of many 
of the species of Crat@gus, for example, are scarcely distinguishable 
one from the other, and in any case it can hardly be supposed that 
n 
el 
tains raaeh that is worth eae Perhaps the oddest thing in 
it is the snnconaaial that, as “our common blackberries it a 
yet perfectly understood, it seemed wisest to exclude t 
ec aae from the book,” and this has been done so iuociaghty 
that Rubus does not appear in the index. Keys are provided for 
the identification of species by the leaves and of trees by the 
character o the bark—this latter is illustrat 
The nomenclature is in accordance with the Vienna Code— 
“at least ib i is intended” to be so—and the author expresses him 
self somewhat strongly with reference to the independent attitude 
taken up by some of his contemporaries. “ Tt is deplorable,” 
e 
own al reasons for not doin gs In any e aient. it is 
perfectly agen that a difference like “this a confusion 
and retards progress: indeed progress is often retarded in all 
potesiaus by just such unwillingness on the part of the in- 
dividual to be : be insubordinate, Meanwhile, it we should pick up 
