THE PLANT WORLD 195 



tation is purely artificial, even though idealists may insist that a genus 

 is a res naturae distincta and not a concept. 



In family nomenclature Dr. Small has adhered to strict priority, 

 taking up the oldest name based on an accepted genus. Of course, on 

 this basis not only names already superseded in recent manuals, like 

 Cruciferae and Labiatae disappear, but many of those still in general use, 

 such as Loganiaceae and Onagraceae, which are displaced for Spigeliaceae 

 and Epilobiaceae respectively. We believe that the time is coming soon 

 when it will be admitted that family names should be lifted outside the 

 rules of priority which govern genera and species and that an arbitrary 

 list will be adopted, the names to have the uniform termination -aceae, 

 and to be based on familiar or important economic genera wherever 

 possible. 



We do not wish to criticise Dr. Small for following the dictates of his 

 own judgment, and he is certainly entitled to credit for the fearless and 

 thoroughly consistent manner in which he has worked out his ideas. It 

 is a pleasure to find that the types of every new species described in the 

 work are listed separately at the end, so that there need be no doubt 

 about the determinations. In view of the fact that the work, on account 

 of its importance and completeness, is destined to take its place as our 

 standard Southern manual, we can only express the vain wish that Dr. 

 Small had been guided, to a certain extent at least, by conservative prin- 

 ciples in the treatment of genera. C L. p. 



Variation in Animals and Plants. By H. M. Verno^i. 8vo, pp. 

 415. New York : Henry Holt & Co., 1903. 



The numerous data accumulated during recent years by the different 

 students of variation have long been in need of general treatment and 

 correlation. The study of variation in animals and plants has become so 

 broad and diverse and the literature so great and scattered that a single 

 student, even though he be a Darwin, can scarce encompass it. 



The present work does not pretend to treat the subject in an exhaus- 

 tive manner but to give a general account of our present knowledge and 

 theories. The author, being a zoologist, is naturally more familiar with 

 that part of the subject, and since he frankly admits the possibility of 

 having omitted important botanical matter we can scarcely find fault 

 with him, though there are matters which we should like to have seen 

 discussed. It is to be hoped that the zoological and botanical data may 

 be compiled by thoroughly competent specialists in each subject, then 

 the coordination and generalization may be done with greater ease and 

 satisfaction. 



