586 BARNHART: DATES OF THE NovA GENERA OF 
appear that the volumes contained about 89, 98, 91, 63, 86, 106 
and 119 signatures respectively ; after which they merely remark, 
“The sheeting of the French records isa mystery to both 
of us].” 
It is well known, or ought to be, that the “‘ Nova genera” 
appeared simultaneously in two editions, one of folio size, the 
other in quarto. It is not so well known, except to those who 
have tried to verify references in the wrong edition, that the two 
differ widely in pagination ; the only printed mention of this fact 
which I have seen is a brief note by Dr. Otto Kuntze,* and he 
does not seem to have had access to a copy of the fourth volume 
of the folio edition. The matter in the two editions is the same; 
they were issued in the same number of fascicles (36), and at the 
same time ; and the plates were alike in the two editions, except 
for the width of the margin; but, the quarto page being much 
smaller, the text extended over a greater number of pages, $0 that 
each quarto fascicle consisted of many more pages than the corre- 
sponding folio fascicle, and the quarto volumes are thicker than 
the folio ones. Messrs. Sherborn and Woodward described the 
quarto volumes ; nearly all of their quotations from the “ French 
records” refer to the folio edition ; it was for this reason that they 
were mystified. The “ Bibliographie de la France,’ upon which 
they were obliged to rely almost wholly for the list they g!v® 
repeatedly mentions the quarto edition, and in many cases specifies 
the “sheeting” of the quarto parts; it is difficult to see how they 
could overlook this fact, although it may well have added to their 
perplexity. 
The folio edition seems to have been prepared so that sub- 
scribers to the entire series of “Voyage” reports might _ 
them of uniform size; the quarto edition, that botanists might 
secure this particular work at a reduced price. The latter, prob- 
ably because of its cheapness and consequent greater accessibility 
to the average student, is the one almost invariably cited es 
botanists ; it. is the one always referred to by Kunth himself, ie 
his later works. While convenient, this practice is not strictly 
logical ; for, as the fascicles were issued without breaking pe 
tures, those numbered correspondingly never contained precisely 
_ *Kunte,O. Rev. Gen, 32: 156. 28 S. 1898. 
