282 Scientific Intelligence. 



In spite of the general tendency toward the elevation of minor 

 forms to specific rank, there are a few noteworthy cases where 

 well recognized forms have been reduced to other species, liosa 

 lucida, a species which with 11. humilis has given eastern botan- 

 ists more difficulty than almost any other common plant, is well 

 treated, as formerly proposed by Mr. P>est, as a variety of the 

 latter species. In some other cases the reductions are less happily 

 made. The case of Carex miliaria, var. (?) aurea has been cited. 

 The related C. miliaria, var. major, Bailey, is unwisely reduced, it 

 seems to us, to G. miliaria, Michx. The plants are in reality 

 quite as different from one another as Carex filiformis and its 

 variety latifolia, treated by Professor Britton as a distinct species, 

 C. lanuginosa, Michx. 



In discussing the specific limits and the figures in certain 

 groups, mention has been made of the keys to species. These, of 

 course, can be tested only by continuous use. Already the 

 course of regular work has given an opportunity to try them in 

 certain groups where carefully planned keys are important. In 

 the genus Aster the key is based primarily upon the most obvious 

 character of the plant, — the leaf— and, so far as it has been tested, 

 with the exception of the group just discussed, it proves to be 

 very helpful. In Salix, on the contrary, the key promises to be 

 of little use, even to one somewhat familiar with the group. 

 This is due to the illogical divisions, some of the primary groups 

 being based exclusively on the staminate flowers, and their 

 secondary divisions on the capsules. 



The points already discussed, with the exception of accuracy 

 of descriptions and figures, are matters to be decided in part by 

 individual judgment; but there is one other essential to the good 

 treatment of a flora, the geographical range of each species, in 

 which absolute facts alone can be consulted. In determining the 

 range of a given species it is possible to get an incomplete view 

 by consulting a single large herbarium. A broader view may be 

 gained by consulting a number of herbaria receiving large collec- 

 tions from different sources, and a still broader view is possible 

 by consulting the more accurately prepared local floras. The 

 most satisfactory results possible are gained by a combination of 

 these methods, and it is asking none too much of our monographers 

 to take advantage of all such opportunities as are open to them. 

 Yet in the statement of geographic ranges the Illustrated Flora 

 is exceedingly disappointing. The New England States, for 

 example, have given issue to many lists and local floras, a number 

 of them works of great accuracy, and the specimens upon which 

 these publications are based are deposited in public herbaria or 

 in private collections accessible upon request to critical students 

 of systematic or geographic botany. In view of these standard 

 publications and readily accessible herbaria, it is a surprise to find 

 that in the statement of ranges of scores and' scores of well 

 known New England plants, their occurrence in the local lists is 

 quite ignored. 



