towards the eighty-one names they are bent on saving at all hazards, savors quite as much of " legitimism" as anything in the nomenclature controversy. Moreover the propositions are by no means as easy of application as they might appear. The work of restoring prior names has been going on pretty steadily for many years. Since 1891 it has gone on quite rapidly. Are the names restored since the reform movement began to stand, or are we to add a 7th proposition, something like this: 'No name recognized since 1891 is to be deemed withdrawn from the operation of the 5th rule?" Then again it must be decided what shall be considered "use" of a name. If a name appears in a work of wide circulation there is a presumption that it has been used more or less. How many other works must cite it to give it validity? And must they cite it with approval, or will citation as a synonym or without comment suffice? What sort of works shall be referred to to ascertain whether a name has been used? Are names used in catalogues and printed lists used? If a writer publish two books, say five years apart, and cite his own names, if one of the books comes within the limit, have the names he quoted from himself been used? Or must some other author use them? The room for individual eccentricity in the application of such a rule is too great to make the rule practicable. As Ascher Besides what need is there of pretending to begin the nomenclature of genera with 1753, when in fact it is begun with 1845? son and Engler point out, their limitation substantially makes it immaterial whether the nominal starting point is 1753 or 1690. The labored distinction between generic and specific nomenclature amounts to very little. It is only partially true that the alteration of a generic name entails the alteration of the name of every species in that genus. Under the Kew Rule it might, perhaps, but otherwise it can scarcely be said that a change of a generic name burdens the memory any more than the change of a specific name. So long as the distinguishing portion of the binominal remains unchanged, each new binominal does not have to be learned over. In conclusion, without going into the merits of the controversy between Kuntze and Ascherson and Engler, I may say that Dr. Kuntze never hides behind vague general statements, but supports his assertions by citations and actual instances, so that they may be verified Whether one accedes to Kuntze's conclusions or not, he may always know upon what they are based. It would be much easier to determine the value of the assertions made by his opponents if they were in the habit of doing the same. It is easy to declaim against "disagreeable alterations" and to make insinuations as to the motives of the reform ers. But the fact remains that Dr. Kuntze has only attempted to do, a little radically perhaps, for all the flowering plants at one stroke, what monographers had been doing piecemeal in every group of the vegetable kingdom. No one objected to their motives, and few to their alterations. Their alterations became a part of "current nomenclature." Had the reform been conducted haphazard and piecemeal, it would have seemed quite proper to many who now vigorously denounce it. ROSCOE POUND. The Flora of Ohio.—In the "Catalogue of Ohio Plants" in Vol. VII of the Geology of Ohio, Professor W. A. Kellerman and W. C. Werner make an admirable contribution to our knowledge of the plants of one of the older regions west of the Allegheny Mountains. The catalogue is prefaced by twenty pages or so of historical matter in which we learn that the earliest catalogue of Ohio plants (Miami County) was prepared in 1815 by Dr. Daniel Drake; this was followed in 1818 by a paper on the Scenery, Geology, Mineralogy, Botany, etc., of Belmont County, Ohio, by Caleb Atwater in the American Journal of Science (Vol. I), and later, 1831, by Short and Eaton's paper (Southern Ohio) and two by Riddell,-Franklin County, in 1834, and the Flora of the Western States, in 1835, to which a supplement was added in 1836. Then follow lists by Sullivant (1840), Bigelow (1841), Lea (1849), Clark (1852 and 1865), Lapham (1854), Klippart (1858 and 1860), Newberry (1859), Hussey (1872), Beardslee (1874), Wright (1889), besides many short papers in periodicals. Following the introductory pages one comes at once to the enumeration of plants, in which the arrangement of the families is that of Engler and Prantl, but oddly enough-in reversed order. Why the authors gave themselves the trouble to invert the natural sequence is not stated. It is awkward, to say the least. We notice with pleasure that the revised nomenclature has been used, and that all specific names have been decapitalized. Double citations of authorities are given when necessary, and varieties are given as trinomials. Altogether the catalogue is a modern one in plan and execution. After the Angiosperms, there follow the Gymnosperms, Vascular Cryptogams, Bryophyta, Hepaticæ, Lichenes, Fungi, Algæ and Myxomycetes. Of the last six groups the authors state that the list "must be considered very fragmentary and a mere beginning," yet this is an excellent beginuing, of which the State of Ohio needs by no means to be ashamed.-CHARLES E. BESSEY. The Flora of the Sand Hills of Nebraska.-Mr. P. A. Rydberg has recently published in the Contributions from the U. S. National Herbarium (Vol. III, No. 3) the results of his careful exploration of the Sand Hills of Central Nebraska in the year 1893. Two or three counties in about the center of the sand hill region were selected as the ground to be thoroughly studied, and three months were given to this limited area. Two streams transverse this area, the Middle Loup River and the Dismal River. The former is a rapid stream running down a slope of 8 to 13 feet to the mile, with hills from 200 to 300 feet high on each side of the rather wide valley (to 1 miles). In its narrower portions the valley is filled with lagoons and swamps, the remains of old river beds. The Dismal River runs through a narrower valley, and the bluffs are higher, ranging from 300 to 600 feet. Away from the rivers Mr. Rydberg found three kinds of sand hills, the first of these are called by him the "barren sand hills," not because they are without vegetation, for they are not, but because they are at present of very little use to man. Here one finds the true Sand Hill vegetation, and when seen from the higher points "the hills appear likes the billows of the ocean." The Dry Valley Sand Hills constitute the second kind. The hills are long ridges running mostly east and west with long valleys be. tween. The underground drainage is so perfect that little or no water gathers in the valleys, but their rich soil readily yields good crops, or excellent pasturage. The Wet Valley Sand Hills differ from the last in the greater abruptness of the ridges, which are, in fact, sometimes impassable, and in the less perfect drainage, ponds of water generally occurring at the easterly end of the valleys. In no case is there "surface drainage," every pond being destitute of an outlet. About these ponds grasses grow luxu riantly. The It is evident that the Sand Hill flora is not a homogeneous one. plants growing along the rivers and about the ponds are very different in character from those which occur on the wooded summits of the "barren sand hills," or the steep slopes of the hills which border the dry and wet valleys. In summing up a discussion of the matter, Mr. Rydberg says: "The most characteristic plants of the sand hills are the four blowout grasses, Calamovilfa longifolia, Eragrostis tenuis, Redfieldia flexuosa, Muhlenbergia pungens, of which the first two are found on nearly every sand hill. Next to these the following are the most common or characteristic herbaceous plants: Andropogon scoparius Stipa spartea Psoralea lanceolata Psoralea digitata Cristatella jamesii Acerates viridiflora Corispermum hyssopifolium Croton texensis 66 Acerates angustifolia Acerates lanuginosa Astragalus ceramicus longifolius Commelina virginica Amaranthus torreyi Cyperus schweinitzii Cycloloma atriplicifolia "The most abundant woody plant is Amorpha canescens, which is common all over the sand hills. Next comes the Western Sand Cherry (Prunus besseyi). On the sand hills around Thedford the third in order is Ceanothus ovatus. Kuhniastera villosa, which should, perhaps, be classed among the undershrubs, is as common as any of the class. All these belong to the true sand hill flora. Nearly all the other woody plants are confined to the Middle Loup and Dismal River Valleys. A few, as for instance, Salix fluvialilis, Symphoricarpus occidentalis, Prunus americana, Amorpha fruticosa are also found in some of the wet valleys." The other woody plants along the streams are Cornus stolonifera, Ribes floridum, Rhus radicans, Rosa fendleri, Rosa arkansana, Ribes aureum, Rhus trilobata, Acer negundo, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, F. pennsylvanica lanceolata, Populus deltoides, Celtis occidentalis, Juniperus virginiana, Parthenocissus quinquefolia, Vitis vulpina, Celastrus scandens, Rubus occidentalis, Ribes gracile, Crataegus coccinea, Ulmus americana and Rhus glabra.-CHARLES E. BESSEY. Recent Botanical Papers.-Dairy Bacteriology by Professor H. W. Conn comes to us from the U. S. Department of Agriculture, giving the results of the author's work the past three years.-From the same source we have papers on Grass Gardens and Alfalfa, by Jared G. Smith; Fertilization of the Soil as affecting the Orange in Health and Disease, by H. J. Webber; The Grain Smuts, their Cause and Prevention, by Walter T. Swingle; Water as a Factor in the Growth of Plants, by B. T. Galloway and A. F. Woods; Forestry for Farmers, by B. E. Fernow. From the Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Sciences we have Pollination of Cucurbits, Diseases of Plants at Ames in 1894, and Distribution of Some Weeds in the United States, by Professor L. H. Pammel.-Dissemination of Plants chiefly by their Seeds, is the title of a pamphlet of fifteen pages based upon the specimens collected by the lamented young botanist Miss Mary E. Gilbreth, and after her death presented to Radcliffe College. It will prove to be very suggestive to those who wish to prepare similar collections.“ A Guide to find thenames of all wild-growing Trees and Shrubs of New England by their Leaves," and "Ferns and Evergreens of New England," are two pamphlets by Edward Knobel, which deserve to be widely used in the public schools. They consist of good figures of the leaves, which should make it possible for even the non-botanical teacher to direct the attention of children to the trees and ferns. They are sold by Bradlee Whidden of Boston for fifty cents each.-We may notice here the beautiful photogravures of fungi issued by C. G. Lloyd, of Cincinnati, Ohio; the last numbers are Coprinus comatus, Crucibulum vulgare, Lycoperdon separans and Urnula craterium.-Professor T. A. Williams has published (Bulletin 43, Agricultural Experiment Station) a paper upon the Native Trees and Shrubs of South Dakota, in which he lists 37 trees and 80 shrubs. Of these, twelve trees and thirteen shrubs are found in all regions of the State. In the Black Hills, a small region including not more than one-eighth of the whole area of the State, no less than eighty-two of the one hundred and seventeen trees and shrubs are found.-Professor MacDougal writes on Botanic Gardens in the October Minnesota Magazine. A half tone illustration of the Botanic Institute at Leipzig, and another of the Botanic Garden at Buitenzorg, Java, accompany the paper. VEGETABLE PHYSIOLOGY. Changes Due to an Alpine Climate.-For ten years M. Gaston Bonnier, of Paris, has carried on experiments in various parts of France to determine just what changes occur in plants when they are transported from the lowlands to high elevations. These are described in a bulky paper in Annales des Sciences Naturelles: Botanique, Sé. VII, T. 20, Nos. 4, 5, 6, entitled Recherches expérimentales sur l'adaptation des plantes au climat alpin. Plants of many genera were removed from the plains, the roots or root-stocks divided into equal parts, and these parts set in similar soil and situations at various elevations, up to several thousand metres, in the Alps and the Pyrenees, |