HEPATICJE EUROPE. 



87 



author. This is scarcely more than natural. It is, nevertheless, a 

 mistake not to have more agreement as to the names which should 

 be adopted for certain genera. Let us take the two parts of Dr. 

 Carrington's work, and compare them with the present volume, 

 leaving others to judge which is right. The first genus, witli one 

 species, is Sccdius of Gray's arrangement (1821). In Du Mortier 

 it is Mniopsis, Dmrt. (1822), exception being taken to Gray's 

 name, " Scalius, nomen hominis est non plantar," although the claim 

 to priority is admitted. The second genus is Gi/mnomitrium, Corda 

 (1829), of Carrington, and Acolea, Dmrt. (1831), of Du ^lortier, each 

 passing over Cesius, of Gray (1821) ; the former because Ccesia 

 belongs to a genus of Liliaceje, the latter for the same reason that 

 Scalius was excluded. The third genus is Nardia, Gray (1821), 

 which includes Du Mortier's two genera of Marsupella (1822) and 

 Mesophylla (1822, 183 1 ). The fourth genus is Trichocolea, Dmrt., of 

 Carrington, and Tricholea of Du Mortier, the difference being 

 merely a question of Lutinity. For this name was written Thri- 

 cholea in 1822, Thricolea in 1831, and Tricholea in 1835, by the 

 same author. In 1838 Trichocolea was adopted by Nees as the 

 accurate rendering of Du Mortier's name, whicli, however, Du Mor- 

 tier repudiates. The fifth genus is Acrobolbup 'Sees {iSii), in 

 Carrington, and Gi/mnajithe, Taylov (18 U), of Du Mortier. _ If, 

 however. Dr. Carrington's plea be accepted tliat Acroholhus differs 

 in certain particulars from Gi/innanthe, it is not a mere question of 

 name. If Mr. Mitten be right, Acroholhus is a subgenus of Gym- 

 nanthe. This, however, is a legitimate subject for difference of 

 opinion. The sixth genus is iSaccogyna, Dmrt., of both authors. 

 The seventh genus is Harpanthiis, Nees (1836), also in both authors. 

 This is the present limit of Dr. Carrington's work, but this is suflfi- 

 cient to show that whilst there is agreement in two genera, there is 

 disagreement in two as to what name should be adopted, and in a 

 third as to the spelling of a name ; whilst in two the difference is 

 rather that of the limits of species, we would fain believe, than a 

 mere question of names. 



Surely it cannot aid in the advancement of science that two 

 works published simultaneously should disagree merely in names, 

 and justify the reproach that Botany is a science of names. It 

 were better to make some concession in behalf of uniformity, and 

 so limit the array of synonyms which add to the labour and do not 

 enhance the simplicity of modern Cryptogamic works. We fear 

 that there are other sinners beside those who study Hepaticse. 



We must, however, commend Du Mortier's volume to the atten- 

 tion of such of our readers as may be interested in the plants of 

 which it treats, ^s it is a handy volume, b} an author of more than 

 half a century's experience, and is undoubtedly a trustworthy 

 guide, differences in nomenclature notwithstandiug. 



