THE CAMBRIDGE BRITISH FLORA 2-J 



second in order of appearance — and for the greatly increased price — 

 £6 15s. net as against £2 5s. net — at which it is issued. These 

 drawbacks may be regarded as inevitable, but they nevertheless 

 militate strongly against the success and usefulness of the work. At 

 this rate of progression, comparatively few of those who subscribed 

 to the first volume can expect to see the last — some indeed have 

 already passed away — and this consideration, coupled with the cost, 

 will, we fear, deter many from embarking on what must pvove an 

 expensive enterprise. 



The general features of the Flora were discussed in our review 

 of the first volume (Journ. But. 1914, pp. 131-4), and there is 

 no need to dwell upon these, as the new instalment naturally follows 

 the plan of its predecessor. A fuller acquaintance with the work 

 confirms the impression already conveyed that the help which can be 

 rendered by typography is not adequately realised : for example, in 

 the index (we note with pleasure that there is only one) all the 

 names, whether retained or synonyms, are printed in roman type, 

 although everyone knows the convenience of the usual differentiation 

 by which the latter are printed in italics. 



The volume is almost entirely the work of Dr. Moss, who has 

 however been helped in " Dianthacece " — more usually known as 

 Cary oplvylla cece — by Dr. Druce for Moencliia and Cerastium and by 

 Mr. R. b£. Compton for Lychnis and allied genera : Dr. Druce is 

 also responsible for Montia and Mr. Pugsley for Fumaria. The 

 Syndics of the University Press acknowledge Mr. Wimiott's "valuable 

 assistance both in correcting proofs and in dealing with matters 

 which are usually settled by an editor, in the absence from England 

 of Professor Moss." Mr. Wilmott also contributes a prefatory note 

 on the late Mr. Hunnybun, to whose generous presentation of his 

 drawings to the University the inception of the Flora is due : he 

 pays a high tribute to the artist's work, and justifies the " ultimate 

 limitation of the portraiture to a single specimen " as resulting " in a 

 corresponding gain of that permanent truth of observation which was 

 to him the tirst requirement." As a rule, the drawings are suffi- 

 ciently characteristic — in many instances they are excellent ; some- 

 times, however, they are less satisfactory : the Chickweed, for 

 example (t. 56), though doubtless an accurate portrait of the specimen 

 Hunnybun had before him, certainly does not portray the plant as 

 we commonly know it. The arrangement of the drawings on the 

 plates is sometimes bad — e. g. Nnphar, Pulsatilla, and Montia 

 fontana var. lannprbsperma ; and we do not understand the black 

 shading in Stitchwort and some allied plants. The cost of the work 

 might have been considerably reduced and its appearance improved if 

 .two or three species in genera such as Alsine, Sagina, and Arenaria 

 had been brought together on one plate instead of very inadequately 

 occupying one apiece : the appearance of the mysterious S. " boydi " 

 on a folio page all to itself is comic, even though the " single tuft " 

 be split into six fragments, as if by an explosion. The dissections as 

 a whole are inadequate — an exception occurs in Fumaria, due, we 

 understand, to the wise insistence of Mr. Pugsley, who is responsible 

 for at least some of them ; it would have been better, we think 



