Statistics of the Flora of the Northern States. 211 



Class I — continued. 



Orders. 



Whole 

 No. of 

 Genera. 



No. of Gen- 

 era With 



Indigenous 

 Species. 



No oflntro- 

 duced (natu- 

 ralized and 

 adventive) 

 Species. 



Who!e No. 

 of Species. 



No. of 

 Indigenous 

 Species. 



No. of our 

 Indigenous 



Species 

 common to 



Europe. 



Liliaceae, 



12 



9 



4 



28 



24 



5 



Melanthaceae, 



12 



12 





21 



21 



1 



Juncaceae, 



3 



3 





26 



26 



14 



T-^nn f/}ri Avi o prim 



X Uli IaJUcI J ttOcco, 



3 



3 





4 



4 





Commelynaceae, 



Xyridacese, 



Eriocaulonaceje, 



2 

 2 



3 



2 

 2 

 3 





6 

 4 

 5 



6 

 4 



5 



1 



Cyperaceai, 

 Gramineae, 



16 



16 



1 



214 



213 



48 



65 



55 



32 



194 



162 



32 





172 



159 



37 



638 ~ 



601 



141 



Total Phasnoga-? 

 mous Plants. ) 



794 



681 



260 



2351 



2091 



321 





Class III. ACR0GENJ5* 







Equisetaceas, 



1 



1 





10 



10 



8 



Filices, 



20 



20 





49 



49 



20 



Lycopodiaceas, 

 Ilydropterides ) 

 (Marsileaceae), J 



2 

 2 



2 

 2 





12 

 4 



12 

 4 



6 

 1 





25 



25 



0 



75 



75 



35 





Class IV. ANOPHYTA. 







Musci, 



80 



80 



0 



394 



394 



255 



Hepaticae, 



38 



38 



0 



108 



108 



65 



iotal, 



118 



118 



0 



502 



50z 





Total Cryptoga- ) 

 mia, CI. 3 and 4, j" 



143 



143 



0 



577 



577 



355 



Total of the 4 ) 

 Classes, j" 



937 



824 



260 



2928 



2668 



676 



It is plain enough that the numbers in this tabular view must 

 be essentially influenced throughout by one's views as to the lim- 

 itation of species and genera. In the hands of a few botanists, 

 the flora of the Northern States might exhibit a somewhat 

 smaller number of species than it here does ; but with most, 

 there would undoubtedly be a stronger tendency in the opposite 

 direction. As it is obviously impossible at present to reduce the 

 various ideas and shades of difference that prevail respecting 

 species to one common standard, all that can be done is to indi- 

 cate the bias, or what astronomers call the personal equation, of 

 each author, which must be duly considered when different 



