6 Karl M. Wiegand and Arthur J. Eames 



It is therefore as a contribution both to pure science and to agriculture 

 that the present work has been undertaken. 



In plan, the treatment herewith presented shows some marked depar- 

 tures from that of Dudley's Flora. This catalog is intended to include 

 all vascular plants growing spontaneously within the limits of the drain- 

 age basin of Cayuga Lake and its tributary streams, while Dudley's 

 Flora covered only the Spermatophyta. A more important difference, 

 however, is the introduction of keys, which should add greatly to the 

 usefulness of the work, and which at the same time afford a concise 

 means of recording much new information acquired during the study 

 of the large amount of material collected in recent years. A considerable 

 effort has been made to verify these keys, and it is hoped that they are 

 reasonably correct. Also, the new Flora differs widely from the old one 

 in the system of classification followed. The original Flora was arranged 

 on the Benthamian system, whereas the system here employed is that of 

 Eichler-Engler, now used very generally throughout the world. By 

 adopting this system the authors do not wish to imply an unquestioned 

 acceptance of it as representing the most modern conception of plant rela- 

 tionship ; but until some other more modern system has been generally 

 accepted, it would not be practicable, in a flora of this scope, to modify 

 that now in vogue. The writers have given themselves some freedom in 

 the interpretation of family limits and in the arrangement and sequence 

 of genera, and still more freedom in dealing with species and varieties. 



Another marked departure from the old Flora is in the nomenclature 

 employed. The names used by Dudley were, with few exceptions, those 

 found in current manuals. In the present work the International Code 

 (Vienna Code) is consistently followed. Nomenclatorial changes due to 

 this and other causes will give an impression of strangeness to one 

 familiar with the Dudley Flora. 



In the matter of specific, generic, and family limits a conservative 

 attitude has been adopted, and departures from widely accepted procedure 

 have been made only after extended study has shown that the old position 

 is no longer tenable. In the main, comprehensive groups have been 

 favored, especially when they can be more clearly defined or when such 

 groups are more nearly coordinate with other related groups than the 

 segregates would be ; and also the belief is held that the indication of 

 relationship shown by the use of comprehensive generic names must be 

 given some consideration. Though there may be a difference of opinion 

 in this regard, it would seem that, for beginners, larger and fewer groups, 

 with fewer generic and family names, are less confusing and less diffi- 

 cult to master than smaller, more homogeneous though not structurally 

 distinct, segregates. An attempt has been made to give consideration in 

 each case to the arguments usually applied by those holding different 

 points of view. 



In this work, varieties and forms as categories in rank below the 



