1036 | The American Naturalist. [December, 
I can find but one elm ( Ulmus americana L.), though Ulmus fulva 
Michx. has been reported from Long Pine Cafion. This elm is one of 
the best trees for the region, not only flourishing on the water line, 
but capable of growing on the uplands almost as well, if protected from 
fire. It attains a diameter of about four feet, and is universal. The 
Hackberry is found with it (Celtis occidentalis L.), but is much less 
common and only half the size. 
The largest tree of the region is the Cottonwood (Populus monilifera 
Ait.), one specimen in Hat Creek Basin, Sioux County, having a 
diameter of over five feet. This species is common everywhere along 
streams, and quickly establishes itself in low meadows by means of its 
tufted seeds, if not destroyed by fire or mowing-machine. In Dawes 
and Sioux Counties, Populus angustifolia James is found in similar 
situations. One or two others have been reporte 
The only tree willow of the region is Salix amygdaloides Anders. I 
long supposed that Salix nigra was common throughout the State, but 
can find no trace of it here. This tree hangs over the streams, reach- 
ing a foot or more in diameter. In this connection it is desirable for 
me to state that since writing on the shrubs of this region (September 
NaTURALIST, p. 803), in which I mentioned a large willow of the 
Cordata angustata variety, at Ewing, Holt County, I measured the 
“shrub” in question, and found it twenty-eight inches in circumfer- 
ence, and eighteen feet high, several similar trees growing in the one 
clump from one root. I think we may say that it has reached “ tree-like 
proportions,” though retaining the habit of the shrub. 
—J. M. Bares. 
Valentine, Nebraska. 
Messrs. Rand and Redfield on Nomenclature.’—A new con- 
tribution to the nomenclature problem has recently appeared in the 
form of a protest against the Rochester Rules in the Introduction to 
Rand & Redfield's * Flora of Mount Desert." Although the phases of 
the question there discussed are by this time rather hackneyed, the 
tone of the article is so confident, and some of its positions are so 
amazing, that a few remarks thereon may not be amiss. 
Had the authors contented themselves with stating that they adopted 
the nomenclature of Gray's Manual because most of those who would 
ave occasion to use their book would be likely to use it in connection 
with the Manual, nothing could be said. Such a course has much to 
be said in its favor. But they have thought best to strengthen their con- 
*Read before the Botanical Seminar of the University of Nebraska, Nov. 3, 1894. 
