350 NOTICES OF BOOKS. 



nately unable to add the fiuisliing touches to the description of 

 this order, and Mr. N. E. Brown, of Kew, has been entrusted 

 by the pubhshers with seeing it through the press. 



The species are described under the two genera Chara and 

 Nitella, Tobjpella and LycJmothammis being treated as sections. 

 Dr. Boswell has taken the "himping'' view of these plants, 

 describing nineteen species and reducing to the rank of varieties 

 several which are usually regarded as species, such as Xitella 

 capitata, Tolijpdla prolijera, and ('hura puli/acaiitlia. The de- 

 scriptions are drawn up in Dr. Boswell's usual careful manner, 

 and it is much to be regretted that the completion of the work has 

 necessarily fallen into other hands. A number of additions have 

 been made by Mr. N. E. Brown, many of which are unnecessary 

 or erroneous ; indeed, most of the sentences of any length included 

 in square brackets contain one or more blunders. This might 

 have been excused in one having no previous knowledge of the 

 gi'oup had it not been for the dogmatic and authoritative tone 

 adopted. The off-hand manner in which the conclusions of the 

 greatest authority on the order, the late Alex. Braun, are dismissed 

 would certainly be amusing, as showing what intense egotism can 

 produce, were it not for the discredit thereby brought upon British 

 Botany ; for instance, under ^Y. nidijica Mr. Brown did not happen 

 to see the difference between plants which Braun had dis- 

 tmguished, so he had no doubt Braun was wrong, and wrote, 

 •' The nucules examined by Braun must have been quite immature 

 ones." As if Prof. Braun did not know unripe nucules when he 

 saw them ! 



The trustworthiness of Mr. Brown's work may be gathered 

 from the remarks under C.fragifera, p. 217, where, after referring, 

 m a footnote, to our notice of a monoecious state, and saying that 

 he had not seen a specimen, he unhesitatingly states of the globules, 

 " Barely on the same plant, and placed immediately beneath the 

 nucule." Now, as he professes to rely on our statement as to the 

 existence of a monoecious state, his description of the position of 

 the globules (Avhich happens to be quite erroneous as regards our 

 specimen) must be purely conjectural. Again, under .Y. (jlomerata 

 var. Smithii, he writes : — " I have very carefully examined Mr. 

 Borrer's Lancing specimen, and only find globules upon it, not a 

 trace of a nucule : this is therefore, I have no doubt, another case 

 of a polygamous species, as in that of N. Jlexilis." Now, any one 

 in the habit of examining CJiaraceie should have had no difficulty 

 in finding young nucules on that specimen. We first have an in- 

 excusable blunder, and then one of those generalisations which 

 seem to come so naturally to the careless observer. We will cite 

 but one more passage, p. 216: — " C. cunnivens appears to be but a 

 sexual state of C.Jhtgilis, as strictly it only difi'ers from that plant 

 in sex." Comment on this would be superiluous. 



Twenty-three plates are given, some of which are noticeably 

 good, especially some of the Tolypclla-, though the spreading habit 

 of T. proli/em is not well shown ; the old reproduced plates, how- 

 ever, are not at all creditable, and one or two of the new ones do 



