29.03.2013 Views

Bulletin - United States National Museum - Smithsonian Institution

Bulletin - United States National Museum - Smithsonian Institution

Bulletin - United States National Museum - Smithsonian Institution

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

42 FLOKA OF WASHINGTON AND VICINITY.<br />

the second place, if it should be thought that from its intermediate<br />

location between the southern and the northern sections of the country<br />

our flora should naturally be the more rich in species, it may be satis-<br />

factorily urged on the other hand that while we have only an inland<br />

territory, Essex County has both an inland and a maritime territory.<br />

Could our range be extended to embrace even a small extent of sea-<br />

coast, the number would thereby be very largely increased.<br />

As a final statistical exhibit more comprehensive in its scope, and<br />

from a difierent point of view, I give below a table in which our local<br />

flora is compared not only with the floras above named, but with sev-<br />

eral others in America. As these several floras not only overlap to<br />

considerable extent, but also differ widely in the total number of plants<br />

embraced by each, it is evident that a numerical comparison would con-<br />

vey a very imperfect idea of the variety in their essential characteristics.<br />

It is therefore necessary to reduce them to a common standard of com-<br />

parison, which has been done by disregarding the actual numbers and<br />

employing only the percentage which each group compared bears to the<br />

total for each respective flora. The relation of the several groups to<br />

the total vegetation of each flora is thus clearly brought out, and a<br />

comi^arison of the percentages of the same group in the different areas<br />

displays in the clearest manner i)ossible the relative predominance or<br />

scantiness of the grouj) in each flora. Upon this must depend, in so far<br />

as botanical statistics can indicate it, the fades of each flora—its pecu-<br />

liarities and its characteristics. As in previous comparisons, the table<br />

is restricted to Phoenogamous and vascular Cryptogamous plants, and<br />

the same groups are employed, except that the large genera are omit-<br />

ted, while the number of orders is increased to the 23 largest of this<br />

flora, which is taken as the basis of comparison, and they are arranged<br />

in the order of rank with reference to it.<br />

The several floras compared, with the total number of plants em-<br />

braced in each, are as follows<br />

:<br />

1. Flora of Washington and vicinity 1,249<br />

2. Flora of Essex County, Mass 1, 324<br />

3. Flora of the State of Illinois 1,542<br />

4. Flora of the Northeastern <strong>United</strong> <strong>States</strong> 2, 365<br />

5. Flora of the Southeastern <strong>United</strong> <strong>States</strong> 2, 696<br />

6. Flora of the Eastern <strong>United</strong> <strong>States</strong> (= 4 -f 5) ,<br />

4, 034<br />

7. Plants collected by the Fortieth Parallel Survey 1, 254<br />

8. Plants collected by Lieutenant Wheeler's Survey 1,535<br />

For the flora of Illinois (No. 3), and also for that of the Northern<br />

<strong>United</strong> <strong>States</strong> east of the Mississippi (No. 4), I have used without veri-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!