110 
In subsequent editions I would suggest the freer use of capital- 
ized and italicized terms to strike the eye and memory of students. 
The second part by, Prof. Jelliffe is, likewise, an excellent ex- 
ample of adaptation of means to an end, this end being the study 
of plant tissues with a view to their practical determination in 
drugs. The first chapter is given to microscopy. After treating 
of cells and their contents, the author describes the tissues, from 
a point of view both anatomical and physiological, as formative, 
protective, nutritive and reproductive. The last chapter is de- 
voted to micro-chemical relations. This part, although of only 
50 pages, is made by judicious condensation, to cover a large 
amount of clearly expressed, easily apprehended matter, made 
still more intelligible by the same profusion of excellent cuts. 
A full alphabetical index of the whole work is a desidera- 
tum. os Vow. 
Remarques surla Nomenclature Bryologique. Par Auguste Le 
Jolis. Mem. Soc. Sci. Nat. et Math. de Cherbourg, 29: 
229-328. 
The author considers in detail the changes in the names of 
mosses originated by Lindberg, and since followed by Braith- 
waite and other bryologists. He believes that the majority of bry- 
ologists have been pained by the trouble and confusion which Lind- 
berg has made in the meaning of the names consecrated by the best 
authors, by replacing names which had a universal usage, by those 
old and unknown ones, which are almost unintelligible except to 
the initiated. He says that “ The protests which have been made 
against these changes have been attributed to the perturbation of 
previous habits and have not been discussed from ‘the side of the 
principles involved.” He discusses at some length the “ Revisio 
generum plantarum” of Otto Kuntze, also the Laws of the Paris 
Congress of 1867, and then proceeds to a detailed explanation of 
the changes made by Lindberg in the nomenclature of the Mosses. 
He indulges in several sneers at his expense, implying that these 
changes were made for the sake of replacing the names of other 
authors by his own, and in many cases fails to give any conclusive 
reasons why the changes should not have been made; but he also 
shows, in several instances, that Lindberg made these changes on 
insufficient descriptions and poor characterizations. The follow- 
