350 NOTICES OF BOOKS. 
The representations are satisfactorily executed, not in the first style of 
botanical drawing, and apparently from Herbarium specimens ; and if 
the latter be the case, it is quite certain we cannot trust much to the 
accuracy of colouring ; still we know well how much colour recommends 
a botanical work to subscribers, and we had rather see such plates in- 
_+ differently coloured than not published at all. The present number, at 
.. least, seems to have been conducted under the eye of Dr. Sonder; and 
if all the work be so, that is a pledge of its respectability and useful- 
ness, and we cannot but wish it success. If it can be afforded at a 
moderate price (but on that score the wrapper gives no information), 
we believe it would command an extensive sale, for such a work 1s 
much wanting to all students of universal botany. The plants here 
given on the ten plates are—Tab. 71, Petrophila media, Br., and P. 
longifolia, Br.; 12, Eriosema Gueinzii, Sond.; 13, Lambertia uniflora, 
Br. and Petrophila biloba, Br.; 74, Anigozanthus bicolor, Endl., and 
Conostylis candicans, Endl.; 75, Cineraria deltoidea, Sond., and Senecio 
megaglossus, F. Müll.; 76, Phyllopappus lanceolatus, Walp.; 11, Wedelia 
Natalensis, ond. ; 18, Ozothamnus thyrsoideus and O. obcordatus, De 
Cand.; 79, Polygala decora, Sond.; 80, Johnsonia mucronata, Endl., 
.. and Laxmannia ramosa, Lindl. 
Moon, Tuomas, F.L.S.: The Ferns of Great Britain and Ireland. 
-Edited by Jons LiNpLEY, Ph.D., F.R.S., etc. Imp. folio. Part VII. 
.  Nature-printed by Henry Bradbury. London. 1855. 
.. We have not much to remark on the present fasciculus of this work, 
_ which includes only one description, viz. that of Lastrea spinulosa (48- 
_ pidium, Sw.). In our last notice, p. 320 of this volume, we observed 
that we should be glad to see how the author would treat this species, 
which he has included under L. cristata, Tab. XIX., as if a form of 
that species; and yet reference is made to L. spinulosa, Plate XXI. (the 
first of the present Number), as a distinct species. If this latter be a cor- 
rect view of the point in question, he should not have brought it under 
L. cristata at all. But here it does stand a distinct plant. That Mr. 
‘Moore should find it difficult to determine the synonymy, “in conse- 
uence of the confusion which has generally existed between it and 
dilatata, which renders almost all the published statements open to 
bt as to the species to which they really belong," we can well un- 
