301 MR. Œ. BENTHAM ON THE AUTHORS’ JOINT AND 
fibres from the nodes, clothed with small blackish linear crisped 
membranous lanceolate pales. — Petiole under a line long. 
Fronds cordate-ovate, flat, membranous, 1-2 in. long, 3-3 in. broad, 
pale green above and rugose with close raised points, dark green 
beneath, and matted with dense short soft hairs, the apex con- 
spicuously emarginate with two semiorbicular lobes, the basal 
lobes shallow and broadly rounded, and a distinct midrib running 
from the top of the petiole to the base of the apical sinus. Con- 
ceptacles not seen.—In fresh water near the east coast, Baron 
1569! 
On the Joint and Separate Work of the Authors off Bentham and 
Hooker's ‘ Genera Plantarum,’ By G. Benrfiam, F.R.S. 
[Read April 19, 1883.] 
SixcE the completion of our ‘Genera Plantarum’ we have been 
asked to distinguish whieh are the parts which we severally took 
in it, and to publish a list of the Orders which each of us had 
worked up. We wish, however, that the whole may be consi- 
dered as the joint production of both of us. It is indeed the 
only joint work in which I have ever been engaged. I very early 
saw the diminished responsibility and other inconveniences of 
partnership botany, and during my long working-time always 
refused entering into any such without the special conditions 
offered on the present occasion. It is true that in some cata- 
logues 1 appear as joint author of botanical papers or work, but 
always by some error. Some of (Ersted's papers on the botany 
of Central America have been quoted, and perhaps entitled, as by 
Bentham and (Ersted, when they are really CErsted's, though 
he incorporated in them the determinations and deseriptions of 
his specimens with which Ihad supplied him. Apart from these 
descriptions, the papers are in Danish, a language with which I 
was once familiar as to reading, but in which I never wrote. 
Then, again, the ‘Flora Australiensis' is sometimes quoted as 
tbe joint work of Bentham and Mueller, when it is entirely and 
exclusively mine, with the assistance indeed, but not the “ coope- 
ration,’ of Baron v. Mueller, this assistance being of precisely the 
same description as that which I derived from the herbarium and 
detailed MS. descriptions of Robert Brown, from the herbarium 
