Bibliographical Notices. 2G9 



of the classes Dodecandria, Moncecia, Dicecia, and Polygamia. Seve- 

 ral new species are given, namely : 



1 . Carex Lipsiensis separated from C. Oederi by its ascending, not 

 erect growth, shorter rostrum, narrower leaves, and ovate not ovate - 

 oblong bracteas. We suspect that this cannot be considered as more 

 than a variety, even if C. Oederi is distinct from C.flava. 



2. Arrhenatherum biaristatum, distinguished by having both its 

 florets furnished w r ith kneed awns. 



3. Campanula cor data, differing from C. Trachelium by having all 

 its leaves cordate and stalked, flowers separate (singuli), calyx hispid, 

 with ovate-suboblong segments. 



4. Stellaria flaccida, "debilitate insignis, viridis ; flores fere S. 

 glaucce, habitus S, graminece ; caulis laevis, glaber, ramosissimus, ra- 

 mis 9 — 1 2 pollicaribus, filiformibus ; folia angustissima, glabra, laevia, 

 corymbus axillaris, efe sub anthesi caule ipso brevior ; pedicelluli 

 elongati, filiformes ; bracteolae scariosae, herbaceo-uninerviae, una 

 alterave serratura instructae, glabrae." 



5. Betonica recurvidens, separated from B. officinalis by its ovate- 

 lanceolate strongly serrated cauline leaves, the serratures patent and 

 " apice subrecurvis." 



6. Hypericum medium. This plant is an intermediate form be- 

 tween H. perforatum and tetrapterum ; from the latter it is distin- 

 guished by its terete scarcely 2-edged stem, and sessile not amplex- 

 icaul leaves, of which the lower are without pellucid dots ; from 

 the former its differences appear to be very slight, depending upon 

 its shorter leaves, the lower of which are not punctured, smaller 

 corolla, which is but little longer than the calyx, and never " dorso 

 nigro punctata." 



7. Hypericum decumbens. This appears to be the variety of H. hu- 

 mifusum with pointed and glandularly serrated sepals, and we think 

 ought not to be separated from that plant. 



8. Leontodon validus, said to be a much stronger, taller, and more 

 branched plant than L. autumnalis, but w T e do not see how it is to be 

 distinguished unless it is by its longer style. 



We have not space to give any further extracts from this valuable 

 contribution to European descriptive botany, which w r e trust will 

 soon be in the hands of all working botanists. We must however 

 protest against the extensive introduction of new terms, both names 

 of parts and descriptive, with which the book abounds, even more 

 than most of the modern German Floras. We know of no good at- 

 tending this practice, and are quite certain that it is a very trouble- 

 some and puzzling one, not only to young botanists, but also to those 

 who are much more advanced in the study of the science. 



