1994] REVIEWS 335 argues that selection hypotheses put forward to explain adaptive strategies must rest on a sound theoretical basis. He goes on to examine the theoretical justification for aspects ofkin selection and male-female conflict. He concludes that there is no single universal answer as to whethercalculations ofcollective or inclusive fitness give more useful descriptions ofthe selection ofsocial acts in plant reproduction. Lloyd cautions that each phenomenon must be carefully examined, that kin selection formulations are not always accurate and that they have sometimes been invoked inappropriately in the past. "We cannot simply assume that kin selection is the preferred mode for describing the action of natural selection whenever we are dealing with social acts among relatives. In the future, kin selection formulations should be employed more advisedly, only when they give an accurate description ofevents." Holsinger explores the evolution ofplant mating systems in the context ofselfing in plant reproduction. He starts by making distinctions concerning inbreeding depression at the population level and at the sibling level. He then develops an alternative model, the mass-action effect model to investigate the origin and maintenance ofselfing in populations. Using this model, Holsinger is able to show how plant mating systems may depend on the density ofindividuals and the frequency ofmating types ratherthan on some intrinsic selective advantage. He describes his model as a hybrid between population genetic traditions that associate selfing with reproductive advantage with ecological studies that show environmental conditions may play an important role in determiningwhen selfing evolves. Among the other chapters, my favorite was one by Pamela K. Diggle on devel- opment andthe evolution ofplant reproductivecharacters. My interest in this chapter may result simply from how much I learned, but I think also because it is an intro- duction to an aspect of evolution that we all know is "important," but is not well- integrated into our thinking and experimental approaches, showing up only now and then. This chapter does an excellent job of bringing in developmental models like heterochrony, progenesis and neotony and clearly illustrating how in some circum- stances they can influence floral morphology and reproductive syndromes. All in all this is an excellent book that really does accomplish the objective of making the current research in reproductive biology accessible to a larger audience, and it does it in a generally exciting and interesting way. The book is well-edited and I found only one typo. Most chapters are well-illustrated although even more would have been helpful. Because it is a multi-author book, some chapters suffer from being combined with really well-written and clear chapters. I noticed that ifI read the same chapter on different occasions, my opinion ofit could increase considerablyjust due to the lack ofcontrast with the better-written chapters. — V. Thomas Parker, Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA 94132. FloraofNorthAmerica, Volume2, PteridophytesandGymnosperms. EditedbyNancy R. Morin. Oxford University Press, New York, xvi + 475 p. Hardcover, $75. ISBN 0-19-508242-7. Much has already been written concerning the landmark publication of the first two volumes ofFlora North America (FNA). The monumental efforts ofDr. Nancy Morin, the editorial committee, and the contributing authors have deservedly met with near universal praise. Rather than repeat the accolades ofother reviewers, I will discuss the taxonomic treatments ofVolume 2 from my perspective as a systematist interested in plant evolutionary relationships and conservation biology. MADRONO 336 [Vol. 41 One ofthe major goals ofFNA is the synthesis and incorporation ofthe systematic research relevant to each taxon. Through the combined efforts of the authors and editors, the coverage of the taxonomic and floristic literature is superb. More re- markably, the majority of the accounts of the ferns have successfully assimilated results from cytogenetics and enzyme electrophoresis. The groundbreaking work on hybridization in Asplenium initiated by Herb and Florence Wagner in the 1950's served as the model for further biosystematic studies offerns, much ofit conducted in the last 20 years. The power ofthese studies, and the influence ofthe Wagners, is likely responsible for the inclusion ofreticulograms in many ofthe fern treatments. These figures do an excellentjob ofsummarizing our remarkably good knowledge of reticulate evolution in the ferns. Hypotheses of evolutionary relationships are best summarized in diagrams, and it is hoped that FNA will continue to incorporate reticulograms and cladograms (none are found in Volume 2) in future volumes. It is encouraging to see that many ofthe fern treatments have been written by the same systematists who conducted the complementary experimental studies. This has resulted in treatments that include important biological insights into the distribution and evolutionary history of the taxa. In addition, the extensive field experience of these pteridologists results in comments like "this species is most often confused with ." which will greatly assist the users ofFNA. However the field botanist may not . . appreciate all ofthe experimental results incorporated into Volume 2. For example, only isozyme analysis can discriminate the morphologically identical gametophytes of Trichomanes intricatum (its sporophytes are unknown) from those of other Tri- chomanes species! In practice these gametophytes would be more readily confused with algae or moss protonemata, the introduction to the genus gives helpful distin- guishing features. Whilethe briefdiscussions followingthetaxonomic descriptionsare full ofvaluable information not easily found elsewhere, I found myselffrustrated by the general lack ofdiscussion for the classifications used in the various treatments. The introduction to Volume 2 states that "with few exceptions taxa are presented in taxonomic se- quence. If an author is unable to produce a classification, the taxa are arranged alphabetically, and the reasons are given in the discussion." In my opinion, it is the "taxonomic sequence" that requires explicit justification. On the other hand an al- phabetical arrangement conveys to me the generally honest assessment that we "just don't know " enough about the relationships. And assuming an author does have a well-founded hypothesis ofphylogenetic relationships for a genus—how is this to be converted to a linear sequence oftaxa? Authors have interpreted the requirement to produce a "taxonomic sequence" in various ways. Many list the species of a genus in the order that they appear in the key, others list them alphabetically throughout or within (often undefined) subgroups, and a few appear to have arranged them according to an unspecified taxonomic scheme. The same inconsistency ofapproach exists for the higher taxonomic groups. At the generic level and above our under- standing ofphylogenetic relationships is currently being revolutionized by the study ofnucleic acid sequences. Thus it is likely that much ofthe taxonomic sequence in Volume 2 willappearverydatedbythetimeFNAiscomplete, whereasanalphabetical arrangement would remain valid for a significantly longer period oftime. A total of 66 North American pteridophytes have been either newly described or placed in new combinations since 1984. (Incidentally, this information was retrieved by accessing the FNA database at the Missouri Botanic Garden and searching for year ofpublication; this demonstrates the utility ofan extremely important adjunct to FNA.) Much ofthis taxonomic work is supported by experimental studies, leading to a treatment that clearly distills the "state ofthe art" in pteridophyte systematics. In contrast to the fervent taxonomic activity in ferns, only two new taxa have been published for the FNA gymnosperms in the last decade. While numerous studies relevant to our systematic understanding ofthe gymnosperms have been carried out during this period, and some of these are cited in FNA, the implications of these studies are generally not incorporated into the taxonomic accounts. Examples include 1994] REVIEWS 337 the genetic studies of the Pinus ponderosa and Pinus contorta species complexes. Perhaps this results from the fact that the studies are done by forest geneticists, and notthe systematistscontributingto FNA. This is unfortunate, forit means that FNA's goal ofsynthesizing the "wide-ranging botanical data" remains unfinished in the case ofthe gymnosperms. In Volume 2, 45 taxa are flagged "of conservation concern" (thanks again to the FNA database for allowing easy compilation ofthis figure). Remarkably, over 50% ofthese taxa are confined to three genera, Selaginella (9), Isoetes (7), and Botrychium (10). Unfortunately, many of the FNA accounts contain little or no information as to why a particulartaxon has been deemed ofconservationconcern. Why forexample is Selaginella oregana ofconcern while Botrychium ascendens is not? The former is not considered on any state, federal, or Natural Heritage Program list, while the latter is a candidate for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act and is on state lists in California, Oregon, and Washington. For the term "ofconservation concern" to be useful, a discussion ofits application in a particular situation should always be given. Persons interested in plant conservation will also look to the distribution maps provided for each and every taxon. All distributions are presented on a standard base map ofNorth America. This is useful for visualizing diverse biogeographic patterns such as widespread taxa, local endemism, and disjunct distributions. However, from a conservation perspective, this "one size fits all" approach is less helpful. For ex- ample, the distribution ofPinus torreyana ssp. insularis can only be obtained from the text since the "spot" is larger than "specks" that represent Santa Rosa and neighboring islands. I realize that a continental flora cannot provide detailed infor- mation on the local distribution of each species in the same way that a national weather forecast won't tell me the probability or rain tomorrow in Corvallis. Since this is the case, references to where to find more detailed distribution maps would be a helpful addition. Also I could not find an explanation for the dark vs. light shading on the maps—apparently the former is used for scattered occurrences over the indicated range (cf. Sequoiadendron giganteum and Cupressus spp.) as opposed toamorecontinuousdistribution. Finally, I mustpointoutthatBotrychiumpumicola, the only Oregon endemic in Volume 2, is not restricted to Greenland as its uninten- tionally misplaced map would suggest. Fortunately its distribution is described in the text in more detail than most. I must admit that I feel a bit ungrateful concentrating on the few shortcomings of Volume 2 and offering unsolicited advice to the FNA editorial committee. For this milestone volume is without a doubt of tremendous benefit to the study of North American botany and its positivecontributionsfaroutweigh the minorimperfections. No botanical library will be complete without the Flora of North America, and I eagerly await the appearance offuture volumes. —Aaron Liston, Department ofBotany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State Uni- OR versity, Corvallis, 97331-2902.