When the average newspaper man wanders among the mazes of botany, he is very apt to put his foot into it, as witness the following from an editorial in the Philadelphia Press:

"One sensible revolution is mentioned which in a country so rich in flora as this might be worthily copied, and that is the substitution of bouquets of exotics by bunches of wild flowers. At a fashionable party recently several ladies carried immense bouquets of dandelions, daffodils, poppies and other common flowers. An economical conception possibly not very kindly received by the florists."

It so happens that neither dandelions, daffodils nor poppies are indigenous - they are all exotics. Equally confused is the editorial on the matter of wild flowers, for the daffodil and poppy are not wild flowers, and have no claim either indigenous or exotic to be classed with our "rich flora." Moreover, we fancy "our florists" would have little objection to a fashionable party trying to do without them in the matter of "poppies," the petals of which fall as soon as the flowers are gathered. Even his poet might have suggested this to the editor had not a manual of botany been among his office books, for are we not told that " Pleasures are like poppies spread."

Even the use of dandelions and daffodils would not ruffle the kindly feelings of the florists, for during the fashionable season there are not even wild flowers to be had. The florist has to force them, and, indeed, we believe that as much money has been made the past winter out of forced daffodils as out of anything that the paragraph intended to express, under the term "bouquet of exotics."