As before stated the following list is based wholly upon specimens in our herbarium. Plants reported as in the state are not included but appended in separate lists, each under heads showing by whom and from what locality reported. NOMENCLATURE AND CITATIONS. As the discussion of the nomenclature question is still waxing warm, happily with less acerbity than before, it has seemed almost a matter of indifference what view of the question was taken with reference to this report. Not that it is a matter of indifference to any worker in the field of botany, but the question seems so far from settlement that one may still expect almost any solution. Stability is the object all have in view and those who publish work of any kind will use that nomenclature which seems to them to offer the greatest chances for permanency. So long as different adherents of the so-called "new nomenclature" are far from agreed among themselves, as witness recent publications, there is small inducement to abandon a fairly satisfactory system. That there is room for improvement none will deny, but until there is international agreement we shall hardly reach a permanent, much less an ideal nomenclature. I greatly regret that citations in many instances are quite incomplete. Meager library facilities must be my excuse. Where the recent "List of Pteridophyta and Spermaphyta of the Northeastern United States" recommends a name, different from that used in this report, such name is given as a synonym without citation. For the citations given I am often indebted to the above list; to recent publications from the Division of Botany, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture; to various publications from the Gray Herbarium and to several other papers and reports. CRYPTOGAMS. In 1894 no Cryptogams were collected except a few Ferns. In 1895 efforts were made to secure the Mosses as well. No attention was given to the other groups but incidentally a few Lichens and Fungi were picked up. In future collecting it is purposed to give more attention to this part of the flora. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. I have pleasure in acknowledging the generous assistance of the various members of the collecting party of 1894. To Prof. W. C. Knight I am indebted for specimens and information in the field and subsequently for literature and data upon various topics. The services rendered by Prof. B. C. Buffum in the field I have previously mentioned; his continued interest and occasional assistance is greatly appreciated. To Mrs. Celia A. Nelson much credit is due for her painstaking care in the preparation of specimans and her devotion to the work during the expeditions of 1895. The task of putting this manuscript in shape for the printer is work for which I am also largely indebted to her. For assistance in the determination of certain groups I am greatly indebted to the following specialists: To Dr. B. L. Robinson, to whom a considerable number were submitted for comparison and determination. For careful reports upon these I am indebted to him and Mr. M. L. Fernald. Certain orders and genera were sub mitted only in part as follows: Astragalus to Prof. E. P. Sheldon; Umbellifera to Dr. J. N. Rose; Juncus to Dr. F. V. Coville; Graminea to Dr. F. Lamson-Scribner; Carex to Prof. L. H. Bailey; Salix to the late Mr. M. S. Bebb; Filices to Prof. L. M. Underwood; Musci to Prof. J. M. Holzinger; Fungi to Mr. J. B. Ellis; Lichens to Dr. J. W. Eckfelt. Lastly I would mention the kindness of Prof. E. L. Greene, who has furnished determinations, corrections and valuable suggestions on a number of miscellaneous specimens. EXPLANATIONS. All comments upon plants, such as rare, frequent, etc., refer to this state and in partictular to those parts of the state which this report covers. The number in parrenthesis following the comments upon each species is the collection number and will render reference to the specimen easy in case any are found incorrectly determined. |