104 NOTICES OF BOOKS. 
guished Count Sternberg,) this would have been a most useful 
publication, had he, indeed, as he declares in his Preface, “ spared 
no pains, time, or sacrifices, to compare figures, descriptions, and 
specimens.” A very slight examination, however, suffices to prove 
how far the performance falls short of the promise. From begin- 
ning to end it shows signs of haste. Genera described as new 
which are evidently very well-known ones, with which they are 
not even compared; new species established upon insufficient or 
imaginary distinctions ; hundreds of specific names given to plants 
existing in collections with numbers only, (or supposed false 
names,) without any diagnosis or character, and, therefore, probably 
without much critical examination; many names corrected in one 
collection by the names given in another, without ascertaining 
whether such are correct: these are all indications rather of a 
desire to attach one’s name to as many species or synonyms as 
possible, than to benefit science. 
In support of these remarks let us take the three first genera 
proposed as new; l, Zonidiopsis, p. 13, is precisely Noisettia, 
Kunth, (not of Martius, who included Anchietea,) and the species 
published J. fruticulosa, Presl, is (judging from the description) 
the common N. longifolia, for which St. Hilaire gives also the 
station near Rio Janeiro. 2, Acrossanthus, p. 22, would indeed 
be a genus “ novum et singulare," if referred, as our author pro- 
poses, to Guttifere, “non obstantibus phalangis stamineis poly- 
andris petalisque oppositis, stylis quinque et stigmatibus orbiculatis _ 
planis;" but, take a nearly allied order in which these characters — 
occur, and turn to a common, well-known, and frequently figured 
South American genus, and to one of its commonest forms, and 
Acrossanthus Lhotzkyanus becomes Vismia Guianensis, or rather 
that Brazilian form, which, though referred by St. Hilaire to the 
true V. Guianensis, has been distinguished by Gardner, apparently on 
sufficient grounds, under the name of V. Hilairii. 8, Dicranope- — 
talum, p. 24, is correctly referred to Sapindacee Paulliniee, and 
distinguished from Urvillea and Serjania, but why not compared 
© with Toulieia, Aubl? exceedingly well characterised by Cambes- | 
sèdes i in his * Memoir on Sapindacez,’ with which it = LE found | | 
