BOTANICAL INFORMATION. 937 
revision up to Feb. 1843 of the excellent monograph of that 
order published by him 1838,* from the ample materials con- 
tained in bis own and other German herbaria, as well as 
Sir W. J. Hooker's rich collection, of which he had the loan, 
and it is only to be regretted that through his conscientious ac- 
tivity in remitting his MS. by the time originally stipulated, 
he had not the means of including some of the later received 
collections, quoted in other parts of the volume. Taking the 
two works together, the exposition of the structure, affinities, 
geographical distribution and systematic arrangement, show 
so thorough an acquaintance with the subject, and views so 
sound, as to leave but little to remark on them. The only 
thing to be regretted is perhaps too great a multiplication of 
genera, In a very natural order like Gentianee, the charac- 
ters by which it can be divided become necessarily so much 
the less important as well as more difficult to appreciate. 
Some of those even on which the primary divisions are based, 
the deciduous or persistent style, the presence or absence of 
a connectivum, require nothing less than the experienced eye 
of the author to ascertain them with precision, although the 
general arrangement resulting from their adoption appears 
unexceptionable. 
Amongst the species we may observe that Grisebach must 
have received a wrong plant for Exacum sulcatum Roxb.; at 
least specimens, so named by Roxburgh, have the anthers as 
described by him in the Flora Indica, and are not different. 
from E. pedunculatum ; Eustoma (Urananthus, Benth.) chiro- 
nioides is probably a  Gyrandra ; Coutoubea lutea, Steud. 
(p. 562 of the Prod.) is an accidentally aberrant form of 
C. densiflora. As to Voyria nuda, it is surprising Grisebach 
should have overlooked the strange anomalies described and 
figured by Splitgerber; the alternate (squamiform) leaves, 
the simple perianth, the position of the stamens, the structure 
* For commercial reasons, the publisher post-dated this work, “ 1839.” 
The manuscript was dismissed from the author’s hands before the middle 
of 1838, and the work had actually reached the London booksellers, near 
à month before the close of 1838. 
