Bentham and Hooker's Gc/icra Plantaniin 5 5 



mus without keeping count of the words placed outside of it and 

 in evidence to constitute the association of species. 



As one might expect in a " Genera," the characters of the genera 

 and famihes are the parts of the work most cared for. The syno- 

 nymy, that of the famihes especially, is rather abridged. We may, 

 perhaps, be permitted to regret the absence of the usual citation 

 of the author who has first given each name of a family or tribe, 

 and the indication of what was a family in the most important 

 antient Avorks. One likes to be advertised by the name of an 

 author that a group is not new as family or tribe ; neither is it any 

 more a matter of indifference to know, without seeking elsewhere, 

 that such a tribe was regarded as a family, or such a family -regarded 

 as a tribe, by such or such a botanist of a certain merit. Never- 

 theless, we beheve that Messrs Bentham and Hooker have 

 done well not to repeat all the synonyms of families, tribes, 

 genera, sub-genera, and sections, which exist already in the 

 Prodromus, in Endlicher, Meissner, &c. They do not mention 

 those synonyms already proved, unless they have something to 

 say about them ; and, so far as regards sub-genera or sections, they 

 scarcely speak of any but those on which they have a remark to 

 make, or a new observation to publish. That abbreviation is 

 almost a necessity, for the number of synonyms has augmented 

 enormously. I possess a manuscript dictionary in which, for sixty- 

 eight years past, my father and I have introduced all the names of 

 classes, families, genera, and sections,^ — in one word, all the general 

 names superior to species. It is a repository more complete than 

 the tables of any work, and by so much the more precious that it 

 gives for each name the indication of its date of publication, of the 

 author who proposed it, of the place which he gave it in the 

 classification, and of that which has been given to it in the 

 Prodromus, when that work has spoken of it. Whenever a 

 book, a pamphlet, or a journal is entered in our library, it is 

 analyzed, to excerpt from it those indications on the new names. 

 Consequendy, our dictionary now contains from 43 to 44,000 

 names. It would, obviously, be absurd to intercalate all these 

 names in a " Genera." That would be to double its size without real 

 advantage. It would be better for science that our manuscript 

 were pubHshed, such as it is, under the same form as dictionaries 

 of languages. Every author would consult it before proposing a 

 new name, which would prevent double employment of the same 

 name. It would be consulted, also, for questions of priority. In 



