Bentham and Hooker's Genera Plantaruni 6 1 



days, to propose a new genus. On the other hand, as there are, 

 and always will be, plenty of rash botanists, it belongs to mono- 

 graphers and the authors of " Genera," to revise their pretended 

 discoveries. Thus, the tomb has just closed upon a Russian 

 botanist, assuredly most estimable and zealous, who knew the 

 plants of his own country well, but who made the mistake of 

 establishing a genus every time he could not detemiine clearly a 

 plant from South America and the Philippine Islands. Many of 

 these genera of M. Turczaninow are based upon a single species, 

 in groups of which he did not see the whole. One nearly always 

 destroys them at the first regular examination ; and it is fortunate 

 in such cases that Messrs Bentham and Hooker have set them- 

 selves to make a "Genera." Isolated monographs are rare; those of 

 the Prodromus march slowly, and do not return upon what is past. 

 It is for our two botanists, who pass in review all families, to pro- 

 ceed more completely and more rapidly. Special works explore 

 to the bottom a small space in the field of science. The "Genera" 

 run over the whole and clear, in some sort, the whole extent of the 

 ground. The service which they render is by so much the more 

 real, that it does not require us to wait. After a volume of the 

 Prodromus, or a monograph of a family, the genera proposed on 

 light grounds may remain for ten or twenty years in the books, 

 if there were not some rapid revision elsewhere. This is one 

 advantage of the "Genera" of Messrs Bentham and Hooker, 

 and we ought to keep it in mind, even when we are not of their 

 opinion on the union of some old genera up to this time regarded 

 as valid. 



On the subject of that fusion of antient genera, we are very 

 little disposed to cite examples, and to weigh them. That would 

 be a perfect bore to the reader, and, at the same time, contrary to 

 our principles. If we have criticised the suppression of a genus 

 of Begoniaceae, it is that we have made that family a special object 

 of study. Let others in similar circumstances, but then only, 

 examine and discuss them. Probably many botanists will do as 

 we do. They will judge it right to consult the work, to profit by 

 the numerous renseignments that are to be found in it, and they 

 will suspend their opinion on many points. The new "Genera" will 

 advance. It will have its defects, like all works ; but definitely, it 

 has already cleared up many things, and it will continue to render 

 positive service to all those who are working in the field of de- 

 scriptive botany. Alph. de Candolle. 



