1892. 



SOME NEW BOOKS. 313 



this hermaphroditism is as yet definitely proved. The figures given 

 by the author are exceedingly poor ; so too, it may be remarked, are 

 many of the illustrations in the book. It is, in short, not possible to 

 accept, without further proof, the statement that A pus is really her- 

 maphrodite ; but, considering that Dr. Bullar's discovery of the 

 hermaphroditism of the Cymohoidae was received with so much 

 suspicion, though ultimately proved to be perfectly correct, it would 

 be rash to commit oneself. 



English Botany, or Coloured Figures of British Plants. — Supplement to 

 the Third Edition. Part I. (Orders I.-XXII.) Compiled and illustrated by 

 N. E. Brown. 4to. Pp. 56 and viii., with six plates. London : George Bell 

 and Sons, 1892. Price 5s. 



This, the first portion of a Supplement to English Botany, has been 

 in preparation for several years. Two similar parts, we are told, are 

 now nearly ready for publication, Mr. Brown having carried it as far 

 as the Dipsaceae, but pressure of other work having compelled him to 

 resign this, Mr. Arthur Bennett has undertaken the continuation. 



Students of the British Flora will turn with great interest to the 

 Supplement; for though our island has been well botanised, new 

 forms are constantly being brought forward, as well as new ideas on 

 the old well-known ones, and a synoptical account of the information 

 every few years is a necessity. Mr. N. E. Brown gives us the result 

 of his evidently careful investigation on the earlier orders, from 

 Ranunculaceae to Celastracese. New forms are fully described, and 

 the localities carefully indicated ; the critical points are, moreover, 

 discussed at length, and the author does not hesitate to give his own 

 opinion, though not always in the best of English. 



The value of a work like that before us lies, of course, in its 

 practical use, and must be estimated by the practical student, who, 

 though differing in opinion on minor points, can always appreciate 

 and use the facts recorded by a fellow-worker. In one point, 

 however, and that by no means of small importance, we fear Mr. 

 Brown will not obtain universal approbation. We refer to the much- 

 vexed question of Nomenclature. The bewildered botanist has, 

 probably, already learned that the white water-lily is no longer 

 NymphiBa alba, but Castalia speciosa, while Nuphar hitea and A^. piimila 

 must be put under NyinpJiaa ; the genera Castalia and Nymplusa of 

 Salisbury being three years older than the Nymphaa and Nuphar 

 introduced by Smith in 1808 or i8og, and used without question for 

 our well-known water-lilies until Messrs. Green and James raked up 

 their proper names in 1887. A service of nearly fourscore years gives 

 no right of way where a name is concerned. 



Study of the sublime may, however, lead to the ridiculous, and 

 surely something of the sort has happened here ; for turning to page 

 I of the additions and corrections we find Corydalis hulbosa and C. 

 claviculata of De Candolle replaced by Neckeria hulbosa and N . claviculata 

 of N. E. Brown, while De Candolle's Corydalis lutea becomes Neckeria 

 lutea, Neck. Neckeria (1777) certainly has priority by twelve years, 

 but by Mr. Brown's own showing is also forestalled by two other 

 names, Capnoides (1763) and Split (1745), the two last being rejected 

 " as names ending in oides and others such as Split are by common 

 consent considered untenable for generic purposes." This seems 

 rather arbitrary. If common consent availed aught, the water-lilies 

 might have been left undisturbed. Besides, have we not Castanopsis, 



