There has recently appeared † a very interesting review of the genus Sambucus, by Fritz Graf von Schwerin, of Wendisch-Wilmersdorf, Brandenburg. It includes the species of the whole world, discussing them from every point of view, giving maps to illustrate distribution, and numerous figures, including a beautiful colored plate of the fruits. The genus is divided into seven groups; Ebulus, Eusambucus, Heteranthe, Scyphidanthe, BotryoSambucus, Tetrapetalus, and Tripetalus. In the first five, the corolla is five-lobed, in the manner normal for Caprifoliaceae; but the last two have it four- and three-lobed respectively. Tetrapetalus has a single species, confined to Australia and Tasmania ; while Tripetalus has also only one representative, exclusively Australian. The austral distribution of these aberrant groups has naturally suggested the idea that they are the oldest members of the genus; and this conception is illustrated in a phylogenetic tree on p. 11, where Tripetalus appears as the stem-form, and Tetrapetalus, as a lateral branch near the base. In Tripetalus the fruits are golden-yellow, and hence it might be supposed that the yellow mutations found in the northern species are atavistic. There are, however, some reasons for doubting whether the three- and four-lobed groups really are primitive. In the first place, five lobes seems to be characteristic of the whole family Caprifoliaceae, as well as related families. In the second, meristic evolution usually proceeds by reduction, and it would seem, on general principles, much easier to derive a three- or four-lobed flower from a five-lobed, than the reverse. Finally, the most

* Illustrated with the aid of the Catherine McManes fund. † Mitt. Deutsch. Dendrolog. Gesellschaft. No. 18. 1909.

[No. 5, Vol. 10, of TORREYA, comprising pp. 101-124, was issued May 26, 1910.]

ancient species of Sambucus known are in Baltic amber, of Oligocene age, and these actually have the corolla more than fivelobed! They are represented by beautifully preserved flowers, figured by Conwentz, S. multiloba having a seven-lobed, S. succinea a six-lobed corolla. Sambucus succinea Conwentz was originally described as Ilex minor Caspary, 1881. Conwentz changes the name because he says there is already a species minor among living Sambucus. This appears to be an error, as no such name occurs either in the work under review or the Index Kewensis; hence S. succinea is entitled to the name Sambucus minor (Caspary).

In this country, fossil Sambucus occurs at Florissant, in the Miocene shales. I have described one species as S. newtoni in Amer. Journ. Sci., 1908, p. 541. A second, very distinct by its long tapering leaflets, is represented by the very beautiful specimen figured herewith. It may be diagnosed as follows:

Sambucus amabilis n. sp.

General structure of leaf, including venation, inequilateral bases of upper lateral leaflets, and apparently texture, as in S. neomexicana Wooton, but leaflets much longer and more tapering, as the figure shows. The lateral leaflets are at least 100 mm. long, with a maximum breadth of 12 or 13 mm., the apex very long and tapering, quite different from S. Newtoni. The marginal teeth are finer than in S. neomexicana, being about 4 in 5 mm., instead of 2 or at most 3 as in ncomexicana. The tapering leaflets are much more like those of S. canadensis in outline, but more finely toothed. The type specimen was collected at Station 14, in the Miocene shales of Florissant (W. P. Cockerell). As preserved, the leaf is light reddish.

One of the most interesting things in the geographical distribution of living Sambucus is the occurrence of a species of the Asiatic group Scyphidanthe in the mountains of German East Africa. This plant was originally described by Engler (Ann. Bot., 1904, p. 537) as Sambucus ebulus africanus, but it is really a form of S. adnata, and must be known as Sambucus adnata africana. By some accident, Count von Schwerin has overlooked Engler's publication.

A point to be investigated in our own flora is the southern extension of S. melanocarpa Gray. I have reason for thinking

that many of the plants from Colorado so referred may rather pertain to the mut. oinocarpa (cf. TORREYA, 1904, p. 58) of S. microbotrys.

REVIEWS

Catalogue of the Flowering Plants and Ferns of Connecticut*

In the many contributions to the flora of restricted areas one, of two fundamental ideals, must color the whole tone of the work. One of these aims to present a list of all the plants which are known to grow in the area treated and to outline the local distribution of them. Such a work is subjective, a record of facts, and perhaps the only method that can safely be pursued in a preliminary treatment. At its best it is little more than a carefully prepared record of undigested and often indigestible facts.

Contrasted with this necessary but somewhat prosaic concept is the local flora which aims in some measure to account for the distribution of the plants in the area treated. A work of this character must digest the records of previous workers, or else begin the accumulation of new ones, and from this point onwards its aims are objective. It is not merely a record of facts but a projector of ideas. It does not confine itself to recording the occurrence of such a plant at such a place, but seeks to unfold the reason of its occurrence at that place and its non-occurrence elsewhere. That in most cases the attempt is an approximation to failure proves nothing, except the desirability of attempting a work, the failure of which postulates a vastly greater contribution to our knowledge of plants, than is conceivable in the most successful works of the old order.

It must be a matter of regret to those interested in local flora work hereabouts, that the recently issued catalog of Connecticut plants must undeniably be placed under the first of these cat

* Catalogue of the flowering plants and ferns of Connecticut growing without culti vation. Prepared by a committee of the Connecticut Botanical Club. Published as Bull. 14. Conn. Geol. and Nat. Hist. Survey. 1-569 pp. Hartford. 1910.

egories. And it is an unwelcome surprise that a state of the historical antiquity of Connecticut, should not long ago have passed through this necessary, but confessedly preliminary, stage of the mere cataloging of plants and their known points of occur

rence.

Taking the work as it is, however, and not as we had hoped it might be, it is a genuine pleasure to record its comprehensive and conservative treatment of the plants of the state. Only such plants are admitted into the list as have been seen by at least one of the members of the committee.* It is, then, certain that the plants listed in the catalog are all to be found in the state.

Much less certain are some localities, [which] rest upon the authority of collectors alone, when the species is once definitely admitted and there is no reason to doubt identity." While the present generation may be willing to accept such records, as in the majority of cases they are probably perfectly authentic, what must be the attitude of our successors in the work? If it is anything like our attitude towards the work of our predecessors, it will be a fine scepticism towards any station listed for which an accessible specimen is not extant. There is a long list of plants which the authors have excluded from the list on this reasoning, and they have even excluded some weeds of more or less fugitive character. These are all listed in a copious appendix.

From a taxonomic standpoint the work is shot through and through with the traditions of the Cambridge botanists, thus embodying the conservative and reasonable treatment of our eastern plants that is presented in the new Gray manual, so called. Any attempt to review the whole taxonomy of the work is impossible in such a short article but a few points call for comment.

Even

In the genus Potamogeton the P. bupleuroides Fernald is admitted while the P. perfoliatus L. is not credited to the state. if one grants the specific validity of this coast segregate of Professor Fernald (which N. Am. Flora denies) what becomes of the inland forms of the P. perfoliatus L. as understood in the new sense? Specimens in the herbarium at New York from Litchfield. are certainly true P. perfoliatus L.

*The gentlemen who have prepared this work are C. B. Graves, E. H. Eames, C. H. Bissell, L. Andrews, E. B. Harger, and C. Weatherby.