2 Contributions from the Gray Herbarium 
are largely in the nature of criticism of the revision by Mr. Paul C. 
Standley of the North American representatives of this family 
(North American Flora xxi. 1916). I would say that, except for 
the tendency to assign specific rank to plants representing mere 
variants of earlier described forms, or, more especially, to maintain 
such variants as “ species,’ Mr. Standley’s work seems excellent, | 
especially as he has succeeded, both in Chenopodium and Atriplea, 
in indicating the natural relationships of the specific units in so far 
as is possible in a lineal arrangement. This is a decided improve- 
ment over Watson’s treatment (which was somewhat artificial) 
and is evidence of sincere work and inherent ability on the part of 
the monographer. 
In thus calling attention in some detail to the raison détre of 
this paper I have had in mind the miscellaneous character of the 
contents, — a condition which I have felt needed some prefatory 
remarks by way of explanation. 
ZicgapeNus. In 1903 Dr. Rydberg, Bull. Torr. Club xxx. 271, 
wrote “ It matters little how broad or narrow concepts we have of 
a genus, if only we are consistent and in the same family or tribe 
designate as genera equivalent natural groups of related species; 
i. €., not making in one case the limits of a genus too large and 2 
another too narrow. 
“I. An inconsistency of this kind exists, I think, in the usual 
treatments of the family Melanthaceae. Chrosperma and Stenan- 
thium, Melanthium and Veratrum, are separated by rather trifling 
characters, while in Zygadenus are included species of no closer : 
relationship. If we keep as distinct all of the first four genera, We 
must, if consistent, divide Zygadenus into at least three genera.” 
Mr. M. E. Jones, Contrib. W. Bot. xiv. 22-23 (1912), has criticised 
this segregation of Zigadenus but his arguments, which in form t00 
nearly approach a sarcastic tirade, fail to convince. The sub- 
stance of Mr. Jones’s objection would appear to be that Rydberg 
has divided the genus along unnatural lines since it consists of 
“ two rather well defined groups (shading into each other), the large 
and white-flowered (often with a tinge of blue) forms with twin oF 
V-shaped single gland which is morphologically a union of two 
glands at the lower edges, and the small yellow-flowered forms 
with a single obovate to oblong gland.” By the indication of 
