131 



MamiaL — The Nciv, William Trcleasc. (Bot Gaz. xv. 71-74). 

 There was naturally considerable interest expressed as to the 

 review of this work, which would probably appear in the Gazette. 

 The reviewer's estimate of the work in general is so entirely in 

 accord with that of all who have examined it, that we cannot do 

 better than quote from his words : *' As a book it is every bit as 

 • good as the last edition. • * * As a manual for convenient 

 use, it is considerably better/' When, however, the attempt is 



T 



made to explain the shortcomings in nomenclature, it becomes 

 a case of '' qui s'excuse s'accuse,'' We shall take the space 

 to make a somewhat liberal quotation. '' Had the new edi- 

 tion of the Manual appeared after a lapse of time since Pro- 



* 



fessor Gray's death, it would undoubtedly have shown a greater 

 number of unfamiliar names than is now the case ; but it is grati- 

 fying to find that in an edition planned by him, a conscientious 



effort has been made to conform as far as possible to his views 

 regarding the limitation and nomenclature of species. 



The editors will doubtless be criticised for this feature of their 

 work, since there is now an unmistakable disposition to fix* the 

 earliest used specific name as that of the species, under whatever 

 genus this may have been placed, a tendency which in some quar- 

 ters reaches for both generic and specific names back of the Lin- 

 nxan introduction of binomials. * * * Although the ten- 

 dency referred to repudiates in several important respects the 

 code adopted by the Congress of 1867, which w^as framed by 

 botanists quite as wise in their day and generation as any who 

 now pass judgment on their views, it cannot be denied that a 

 rigid application of the principle of priority can scarcely lead to 

 any other result; and it may be that with the concurrence of the 

 next generation the temporary instability of the nomenclature 

 will finally give the real stability that all botanists desire. * 



In this connection, however, attention ought to be called to 

 the unadopted changes in generic names in th^ NymphcEace<^ that 

 have recently been discussed in the BULLETIN OF THE TORREY 

 Botanical Clui], and to the unaccepted substitution o{ Hicoria 

 for the familiar Carya. However it may be with these genera, 

 it is to be regretted that Spergitlaria of the old edition appears 

 in this edition as Buda and not Tissa'^ 



