90 



CONSPECTUS FLOR.E AFRICA. 



the lines which his monograph will follow. We hope to notice this 

 important contribution to systematic botany when it appears, and 

 therefore do not propose to discuss the arrangement now ; but we 

 cannot help calling attention to the very large number of new 

 names whicli the enumeration contains. Many of these, of course, 

 are the result of transference, and in such cases are scarcely 

 nomina nuda ; and in many other instances the plants intended are 

 indicated by a collector's number, and can be thus identified. But 

 there remain instances in which no such determination can be 

 made, and the usual kind of indication where they will ultimately 

 be published is omitted. Whether under the exceptional circum- 

 stances such publication can be justified is a matter of opinion ; 

 but there can be little doubt as to the value of Mr. Clarke's contri- 

 bution to the Conspectus. 



There are of course small points open to criticism in matters of 

 detail, but the work as a whole is singularly well done. The dates 

 of printing of different parts of the volume, which are thoughtfully 

 given 01 the back of the title, must be borne in mind by those who 

 use the work, or they may be inclined to think certain omissions 

 culpable rather than — as they are — inevitable. The first 142 pages, 

 for example, were printed off in 1892, which of course accoants for 

 the omission of the orchids described by Dr. Kranzlin in Bot. 

 Jahrbuch, xvii. 48-68 (1893).* Aristea Lostil Baker [Handb. Irid. 

 142 (1892)) and A. x>nniculata Pax (in Bot. Jahrb. xv. 151) are 

 certainly the same ; but it is not quite easy to determine which 

 takes precedence, on account of the omission of dates of publication 

 from this volume of the Jahrbuch — an omission which we are glad 

 to see rectified in the most recent volume. Dr. Klatt does not 

 seem to have noticed the identity of the two plants ; he cites 1892 

 as the date of publication of A. paniculata, which is likely to be 

 correct, though the volume bears date 1893 ; but in that case both 

 were published in the same year. A similar difficulty occurs with 

 regard to Acidantliera gracilis Pax and A. zanzibarica Baker, but in 

 this case Dr. Klatt reduces the latter as a synonym. The compilers 

 can hardly be blamed for not having detected the blunder in the 

 Linnean Society's Journal [Botany, xxix.), by which, both in text 

 and on plate, Holothrix madagascariensis is referred to Habenaria 

 Eiliotii. 



As is almost inevitable in a work of this kind, there are omissions, 

 the most troublesome, perhaps, being those which result from the 

 imperfect citation of the species contained in an easily accessible 

 paper. For example, of the thirteen new monocotyledons described 

 in Mr. Scott Elliot's 'Novitates Capenses' [Juurn. Bot. 1891, 70-74), 

 six are altogether omitted — among them a genus not included in 

 the Cimspcctus : three are cited from Mr. Baker's Handbook of IridecB ; 

 one from the Journal of the Linnean Society (! ) ; and only three from 

 the place of original pablication : of two species of Anthericum, one 



* It may be noted that Bulhophyllum compactum Kriinzl. I. c. 48 = B. corio' 

 phorum Eidl. in Journ, Linn, Soc> xxii. 119 (1886) ; both are founded on 

 Humblot, 337. 



