MR. G. BENTHA3I ON EUPH0RBIACE.E. 189 



one of the best of the splendid ' Flora Brasiliensis ' inaugurated 

 by Martius, described a large number of new Euphorbiacese, chiefly 

 from the herbaria of Petersburg and Berlin, illustrating the Bra- 

 zilian portion of the Order by 104 well-executed plates. Finally, 

 the most recent review of the Order is Baillon's " Histoire des 

 Euphorbiacees " in the fifth volume of his ' Histoire des Plantes.' 

 This, however, is in great measure a compilation without much 

 reexamination of specimens ; for he has sometimes, it would ap- 

 pear, rather carelessly abandoned some of his former views to 

 adopt those of Mueller, where his own may be the more correct ; 

 and the manner in which he has in other instances amalgamated 

 genera which he as well as all others had previously maintained, is 

 evidence of hasty conclusions much to be regretted. As for my- 

 self, in preparing the arrangement for our c Genera Plantarum,' 

 I have endeavoured to follow the lead of one or other of my pre- 

 decessors, or of both when they appeared to be not too much 

 opposed to natural affinities ; but I have thought it right to take 

 nothing for granted, and to examine for myself every genus, sec- 

 tion, or apparently aberrant species of which specimens were 

 available, reconciling as far as was in my power absolute characters 

 with other evidences of natural consanguinity. In doing so, I 

 freely submit my conclusions to the criticism of those who may 

 follow me, admitting beforehand that some of my subdivisions are 

 still much too technical, although I have failed in my endeavours 

 to improve them. I have also to regret that so many Madagas- 

 car and New-Caledonian genera described from the Paris collec- 

 tions are out of my reach, being as yet unrepresented at Kew. 



II. NOMENCLATURE. 



The study of Euphorbiacese naturally suggests some considera- 

 tions on botanical nomenclature, as it w r as that Order which was 

 the occasion of the discussion of the subject previous to the esta- 

 blishment of the Candollean code. The extraordinary manner in 

 which J. Mueller, in the ' Prodromus,' had appropriated to him- 

 self long-established names of genera or species if he only m^de 

 the slightest change in their character or circumscription, the 

 publishing as his own so many names that he found in widely 



distributed collections of specimens or in generally published 

 catalogues, excited much comment on the part of botanists, and 

 Alphonse De Candolle was induced to take up the question, and, 

 after much deliberation and communication with the principal 



LINN JOUBN. — BQTANV, VOL. XVII. Q 



