64 The West American Scientist. 
TREES AND, SHRUBS. OF SAN DIEGOWGOGCR Gs 
CAL TROT TEA: 
In the first bi-ennial report of the California State Board of 
Forestry, (1885-86), I contributed at the request ot Hon. Abbot 
Kinney, a short paper under the above title. In it I briefly noted 
the general distribution in the county, of the ligneous plants that 
were known to me; thus it was necessarily incomplete, and some 
species were omitted as being scarcely worthy of mention. The 
article was further marred by a multitude of typographical errors 
and even whole pharagraphs by other authors were wrongly in- 
serted under my signature. | 
Botanical science would not have been seriously affected, how- 
ever, had the history of this unfortunate paper ended with the 
report of the California Board. But Hon. B. E. Fernow, chiet 
of the Forestry division of the U. S, Department of Agriculture, 
saw fit to criticise my gratituous work as incomplete, in his second 
bulletin,(page i198), and, without consulting the writer or others 
who have had opportunity for an acquaintance with the subject, 
presented ‘a complete list’ of the trees and shrubs of San Diego 
county (pp. 202-5). This ‘complete list’ was compiled mainly 
from Watson’s Botany of California, by Mr. Geo. B. Sudworth, 
and fully seventy species belonging to our flora was ommitted, and 
nearly a score of species were erroneously admmitted by him. 
Thus its scientific value was wholly destroyed, and curiously 
enough the compiler of this ‘complete list’ omitted nearly all the 
species enumerated in my paper, that were not mentioned in 
Watson’s Botany. 
The very evident worthlessness ot this ‘complete list’ was 
enough to render criticism almost needless. But now a second 
edition of Bulletin No. 2, of the Forestry division comes to hand 
containing a list purporting to be a ‘modification of that in the 
first edition.’ In an editorial note the Chief says: 
‘‘The modifications have been made upon the authority of Mr. 
“C..R. Orcutt and Dr: S.B. Parish; both of San Diego county, 
‘California. Thanks are «specially due to Dr. Parish, who is 
‘writing a flora of this region, for the addition of several unpub- 
‘lished species. The cacti, and other plants not truly shrubs or 
‘trees, have been omitted. A few species, however, not always 
‘woody throughout, have been inserted. The fact that Mr. Kin- 
‘ney submitted a list confined to San Diego county must explain 
‘the insertion of such a limited list, while it would have been de- 
‘sirable to embrace the flora of Los Angeles and San Bernardino 
‘counties as forming a true botanical region.”’ 
This explanatory note of the Hon. B. E. Fernow is almost as 
unfortunate as the rest of the history of this article. A letter to 
the Chief criticising the ‘complete list’ (by which the first edition 
may most conveniently be designated) with his apologetic reply, 
forms the whole of the correspondence between us, and the mod- 
