Botany. 279 



ness of the pages due in part to the studied symmetry of the 

 descriptions ; but this is secured at a very dear price, for through 

 the carefully estimated symmetry of the text the most important 

 point in scientific description, namely clearness, is lost. Most 

 plants have not been over-described in the space allotted each 

 species, but many trivial varieties (or, as generally treated here, 

 species), which differ from the typical plants only in one or two 

 details, could best be distinguished from those species by a mere 

 phrase ; while here that critical phrase is lost to the eye in a maze 

 of unimportant details. For example, take Houstonia ciliolata 

 and longifolia on page 214 of the third volume. These forms 

 differ from each other only in minor and inconstant characters, 

 yet an examination of the text will show that many general points 

 in one description are repeated in the other, quite obscuring the 

 essential differences which should be brought out. Again if the 

 essential features of each species were in some way emphasized or 

 contrasted with the distinguishing points of related species, much 

 would be gained toward the clearness and ready usefulness of the 

 work. In the Appendix this seems to be realized ; but it would 

 vastly increase the real value of the book as a field or herbarium 

 companion if this method had been adopted before the last few 

 pages of the third volume. 



Intimately associated with the descriptions are the figures. 

 These, as a whole are very attractive ; but here, as in the descrip- 

 tions, the test should not be the mere superficial appearance, but 

 the presentation or omission of specific characters and the 

 accuracy of details. From a general examination it would seem 

 that in groups where the specific characters are largely habital 

 the figures will prove of considerable service. In such groups, 

 unfortunately, as require accuracy of detail and the representa- 

 tion of special parts, the figures are often most disappointing. A 

 few groups should be made exceptions to this statement ; for 

 instance, in the JSTaiadacece, in which the text is by the late Doctor 

 Morong and the figures are mainly reduced from the larger ones 

 of his monograph, the details are very well brought out. In 

 some groups, on the other hand, there seems not a little carelessness 

 in either the drawings or the descriptions ; at any rate, they 

 are decidedly at variance. In the genus Carex, for example, it is 

 surprising to find accompanying the description of C. crinita and 

 the figure of a crinita perigynium a good habital sketch of 

 C. gynandra. Carex Raeana is a slightly different case. Pro- 

 fessor Britton reduces to C. Raeana C. miliaris var. (?) aurea, 

 Bailey, a very different form ; and he has figured as O. Raeana 

 the latter plant. A comparison with Doctor Boott's plate of C. 

 Raeana shows the Illustrated Flora figure to have striking differ- 

 ences. The leaves of /Salix Barclayi are described as serrulate, 

 yet in the figure the plant is represented with entire leaves. 

 Senecio sylvaticus is distinguished from S. vulgaris principally by 

 the simple involucre, lacking an outer short series ; but the figure 

 shows an involucre with the outer series of S. vulgaris. Other 



