Bulletin - United States National Museum - Smithsonian Institution

FLORA OF WASHINGTON AND VICINITY. 53
been worked* up by American botanists. The old ones are therefore
retained with a simple indication of the recent disposition
Diplopappus has been included in Aster.
Maruta has been included in Anthemis.
Leucauthemum has been included in Chrysanthemum.
Cacalia has been included in Seuecio.
Lappa has been made Arctium.
Cynthia has been included in Krigia.
Mulgedium has been included in Lactuca.
Nabalus has been made Prenanthes.
YalcrianeUa^ Moench, has also been made co-extensive with Fedia^
Gaertn., and is preferred by those authors.
Several of these cases are a return to the older names, and whether
they will be adopted by American authorities it is impossible to say.
Two discrepancies are noted between the Genera Plantarum and Gray's
Synoptical Flora : The genus Steironema is wholly ignored by Bentham
and Hooker, unless the reference to Steiromeria in the Addenda to Vol.
II (p. 1240) refers to it with an erroneous orthography. Professor Gray
also declines to follow the English botanists in referring Acerates to
Gomphocarjms.
It remains to consider the one deviation above referred to from the
prevailing system of botanical classification which it has been thought
proper to make in the subjoined list of plants. This consists in placing
the Gymnosperms, here represented only by the single order Gonifera\
after the Monocotyledons and next to the Cryptogams. It is not the
proper place here to state the already well known grounds upon which
this position of the Gymnosperms has been defended. (See American
Naturalist^ June, 1878, pp. 359 to 378.) It is sufficient to point out that
the correctness of this arrangement was recognized by Adrien de Jus-
sieu, and has been repeatedly maintained by later botanists of emi-
nence. The object in adopting it here, however, is not simply because
it seems fully justified by the present known characters of i)lants, for
consistently to do this would also require that the Polypetalw be placed
before the Monochlamydem (in the descending series), and that numer-
ous other changes be made. So wide a departure from the existing:
system would seriously detract from the convenience of the work as a
practical aid to the local botanist, and, aside from the labyrinth of nic&
and critical points into which it must inevitably lead, would not be ad-
visable in the present state of botanical literature. But as the positioa
: