696 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



modest account of some 180 pages, which appeared as Part I. of the Morphology 

 of Spermatophytes, the text and figures together now occupy more than two and a 

 half times that space, an increase of thirty-six pages on the edition of 1910. 



It is just because the Morphology of Gymnosperms has been a valuable book to 

 both teacher and student in the past, that we deplore the absence in the present 

 edition of those changes requisite to bring the subject-matter abreast of modern 

 work. Indeed the chief alterations comprise certain changes in the treatment of 

 the Cycadales, a few additions and corrections, and a supplementary Bibliography. 



The need for a revision of the text in the light of recent research is most 

 patent in the chapter devoted to the Cycadofilices. Here, for example, we find 

 the statement still remains that Co?iosto7iia and Sphcerostoma agree with 

 Lagenostoma and Physostoma in the possession of a beaked pollen chamber. 

 The bibliography, too, of this section, in spite of the Appendix to Literature, is 

 very incomplete, and among the papers that have appeared since the last edition, 

 of which no mention is made, we may cite those of Bertrand ("Les fructifications 

 de Neuropteridees "), de Fraine (Medullosa pusilla), Gordon (Rhetinangium), 

 Kidston and Gwynne-Vaughan (Stenomyelon), Kidston and Jongmans (Neuropteris 

 obliqua), Kubart (Lyginodendron and Heterangiuiri), Oliver and Salisbury {Cono- 

 stoma), Salisbury (Trigonocarpus Shorensz's), Scott (The Heteran t %ium s) and Scott 

 and Jeffrey (Calamopttys), A number of important papers dealing with the 

 Gnetales have appeared since 1910, and here again the results achieved require to 

 find adequate expression in the body of the volume. 



It is to be hoped that in the near future the authors and publishers will see 

 their way to the production of an entirely revised edition such as is warranted 

 by the advances in our knowledge. Even, however, in its present form this is by 

 far the most complete account extant, and as such should be in the hands of every 

 one engaged in the study of this group. 



E. J. Salisbury. 



Histology of Medicinal Plants. By William Mansfield, A.M., Phar.D. 

 [Pp. xi + 305, with 54 figures and 127 plates.] (London : Chapman & Hall, 

 1917. Price 13-y. 6d. net.) 



The object of this work " is to provide a practical scientific course in vegetable 

 histology for the use of teachers and students in schools and colleges." 



The profuse and, in most cases, excellent illustrations should render the book 

 a useful atlas to the student of pharmacy, since the characteristic tissue elements 

 of many common drugs are portrayed in detail. But for the student of vegetable 

 histology the treatment is not sufficiently comprehensive, and, we regret to say, 

 there are several inaccuracies and ambiguities of description, which, though perhaps 

 not of serious importance for the pharmacist, render the book qu.te unsuited for 

 botanical readers. Thus, in describing the arrangement of the vascular bundles, 

 we read (p. 292), "the radial type of bundle is met with most frequently in 

 monocotyledonous roots." Again, on p. 298, "this type of bundle (the open 

 collateral bundle) is characteristic of the stems and roots of dicotyledonous plants." 

 Such statements entirely ignore the essential similarity of construction in the 

 primary structure of the roots of both groups, and the fundamental differences 

 which exist between stem and root on the one hand and dicotyledon and 

 monocotyledon on the other. The description of the bordered pit is also very 

 inadequate, and the same may be said of the characterisation of the phloem or 

 the treatment of the two types of laticiferous elements. 



Even for the pharmacist there are omissions of some moment. For instance, 



