363 
terval of eleven years the first fascicle of part I. volume I. appeared 
in October, 1895 and was reviewed in the BuLLETIN of the following 
month. This was edited by Dr. Robinson largely from the manu- 
script left by Dr. Gray and by his immediate successor Dr. Watson. 
The fascicle now issued is intended to be bound with fascicle I., 
the two forming together a volume of 505 pages furnished with a 
complete index and preliminary key to the orders, here so termed. 
The whole volume covers forty-five families of Polypetalae from 
Ranunculaceae to Polygalaceae. A third fascicle now in prepara. 
tion will include the Leguminosae. 
The modern principle of codperation has entered into the 
making of the fascicle now before us, and the names of President 
Coulter, Dr. Trelease and Prof. Bailey add their special authorities 
to the exposition of several important families. The text of most 
of the families, however, is credited directly to Dr. Gray, and for 
the most part appears to have been derived verbatim from his 
manuscript, revealing unmistakably his effective handiwork in 
technical description. Prof. Coulter has returned to the Hyperi- 
caceae and Dr. Trelease to the Geraniaceae, both authors finding 
something to add to their former useful monographs, but, be it 
said in regard to certain points, curiously exposing themselves to 
attack with their guards down. Prof. Bailey has contributed 
especially the genus V7ts. 
Dr. Robinson’s own contributions to the work, besides the — 
multifarious and exacting detail of editing, has consisted in the 
treatment of several special genera and minor families, and more 
particularly of the extensive and attractive family Caryophyllaceae, 
and of the Sapindaceae and Polygalaceae. The descriptions are, 
as a rule, admirable, and it is evident that the later hand has — 
caught much of the clear-cut facility of the master. 
We cannot help observing, however, that here and there the 
treatment of species and genera and, what is of less consequence, 
their names, seems to betray a proneness to linger within the com- 
fortable precincts once occupied by a sound conservatism under 
the conditions belonging to a period not yet remote but rapidly 
passing back into the domain of botanical antiquity. We are 
hence disposed to arraign the editor for a too conscientious ad- 
herence in the interest of conformity to the methods and theories 
