Bibliographical Notices. 481 



to scaher: no distinction, such as is now usual, is made between 

 triangular, triquetrous, and trigonous : cuspidate is defined as al- 

 most, if not quite, synonymous with acuminate, but most modern 

 descriptive botanists distinguish carefully between them, considering 

 a cuspidate organ to be one which is abruptly acuminate, i, e. bluntly 

 rounded at the end, but with a point large at its base but gradually 

 narrowed upwards placed upon it. 



The British Botanist's Field-book : a Synopsis of the British 

 Flowering Plants. By A. P. Childs, F.R.C.S. Post 8vo. 

 London, 1857. 



We are sorry that it is not in our power to give a favourable 

 account of this book, for the author's object is manifestly good. He 

 has undertaken that which we believe to be nearly impossible, namely 

 to produce a book containing " the essential marks, and those alone, 

 by which each order, genus, and species may be distinguished." Mo- 

 destly, he does not pretend to have fully succeeded, but the very fact 

 of publication proves his belief that to a great extent he has done so. 

 It might be supposed that the task is not so very difficult, for we 

 find authors like Arnott and Babington giving, in their respective 

 Floras, something which at the first view might be supposed to sup- 

 ply the materials for such a book as this before us. Upon a more 

 careful examination, it will be found that this is far from being 

 the case ; for Dr. Arnott' s tabular views of the orders and genera 

 are accompanied by fuller characters, by which the group may be 

 determined with greater certainty ; and the italicized parts of the 

 specific characters in Mr. Babington' s Manual are so prepared as to 

 help in the determination of the species by showing to what point it 

 is desirable that attention should primarily be given, but do not pro- 

 fess to distinguish the species from all its allies inhabiting this coun- 

 try, far less from those found upon the European continent, for an 

 examination of the remainder of the character is requisite to do that. 

 Even supposing that the present author had succeeded in his object, 

 we should consider the bo9k as likely to be more injurious than 

 otherwise to the science of botany. Great advances have been made 

 of late years in our knowledge of the plants of Britain, and many 

 additions to the list discovered, which even Mr." Childs allows to be 

 deserving of notice. But would this advance have taken place if our 

 descriptive books had been written by men who confined their study 

 to Britain alone, or, if their reading was more extensive, showed no 

 trace of it in their books ? Should not we have remained in the 

 condition in which botany stagnated for so many years, when collect- 

 ors were satisfied if they could force their specimens to conform to 

 some description given in the works of Smith ; and when it was sup- 

 posed, as we well remember, tbat no new plants remained to be added 

 to our flora ? In the book before us, and in others in this respect 

 resembling it, which we have thought it unnecessary to notice, there 

 is nothing to cause the reader to suppose that further knowledge is 

 desirable. He has discovered the name of his plant, or thinks that 



Ann. ^ Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 2. Volxix. 31 



