167 
Our attention has recently been called to a work with the 
above title, which, the introduction states, is designed to replace 
the confusing ‘“‘ Manuals ” and “ Floras” so’ that “ with a little 
guidance from the teacher, the child caz trace a flower from its 
great ‘class’ down to the particular number of the particular 
family to which it belongs.” We always heartily welcome all 
good works whose aims are to simplify and popularize the study 
of botany, but this is one in which the attempt in these directions 
has apparently blinded author, publisher and public alike, caus- 
ing the former to sacrifice many of the plainest and best known 
facts, and the latter to overlook or ignore the most self-evident 
blunders. How the book could have reached a third edition in 
its present shape without attracting attention or inciting protest 
and ridicule is a mystery. From end to end blunders and errors 
are met with, and an attempt to enumerate them all would be 
bewildering. We note a few by way of example. 
Page 23, the definition of whorled is ‘ Round the entire stem, 
almost like the petals of a corolla,” and by way of illustration are 
two figures, one representing connate leaves, the other a perfoli- 
ate leaf. 
Page 118 has a figure denominated “ branch of alder.” It is 
manifestly nothing related to Alnus but it is a very good rep- 
resentation of Populus. 
Page 126 contains a figure with the legend “ pepper of Val- 
erian.” This was evidently no misprint, as it also occurs in the 
text. We presume “pepper” must be the popular name for 
seed or fruit. 
Page 134 is occupied by three figures. Two of them are 
sufficiently accurate for us to recognize the fact that Aster sp. 
Tests easily as ““ May Weed.” Anthemis is equally contented as 
“Wild Aster (white).” 
Page 142 is ornamented with a cut of a thistle leaf labeled 
“ Leaf of Holly.” : 
Page 167 has a figure of a Galium as illustrative of “ Milk- 
weed.” We suppose this must mean Asclepias, as we are told 
that it is allied to the dogbane. We are warned, however, that 
they are too hard to analyze and that we “had better just now 
be content to look at them.” 
