24 NOTICES OF BOOKS AND MEMOIRS. 



germination, growth, and reproduction of Hemileia are relocated 

 again and again on the coffee on estates." 



Conspectus FIovcb EuropcECB. Auctore C. F. Nyman. III. Corolh- 

 floraB — Monochlamydeae. Orebro, Sueciae. 1881. 



The pecuhar value and great merit of this work are already so 

 generally recognised among British botanists that it would be 

 unnecessary, if not impertinent, to add to what has been said on 

 this head in the reviews that have appeared in this Journal on 

 Parts I. and II.''' So as to the scope and plan of the work there 

 can be no occasion for further remark or comment. That the 

 labour involved in the preparation of this part must have been at 

 least equal to that expended on the production of either of the 

 others will be readily believed when it is remembered what critical 

 genera are here dealt with. Thus under Veybasciini, besides the 

 distribution of the 54 species and 15 varieties given in detail, there 

 are no less than 39 hybrids enumerated. Me^itlia, too, has its 14 

 hybrids and 11 varieties, in addition to its 13 species; and Salix 

 its 64 hybrids, 10 varieties, and 54 species. In Salix, moreover 

 (and to some extent in other genera), an attempt is made to give 

 the details of distribution for hybrids, as well as for species and 

 varieties. Then there are such formidable genera as Teiicrium 

 (50 species). Salvia (42), Stachys (50), Thymus (38), EujjJwrbia (107), 

 Plantago (43), Armeria (44), and Statice (52) ; not to speak of such 

 orders as ScrophulariacecB, Che7wpodiacea, and PolygonacecB. 



In his treatment of British species Dr. Nyman's conclusions in 

 this Part seem to differ from those most prevalent amongst 

 ourselves rather more frequently than was the case in Parts 

 I. and II. The following notes include the chief instances of such 

 disagreement, in the order in which they occur. If Vinca minor, L., 

 is native anywhere in Great Britain (a very doubtful point), it 

 would appear to be quite as much so in several of the Scottish 

 counties as in any English. Here it is admitted as native in 

 "Angl.," not "Brit." In Gentiana, G. germanica, W., is given 

 specific rank; for G. verna, L., we find "Angl. (Teesdale, Durham)" 

 instead of "Angl. bor (r)," or, more exactly, "Angl. (York n.-west, 

 Durham, Westmoreland)" ; and "Scot." for G. uliginosa, W., as a 

 var. of G. Amarella, L. The treatment of the genus Erythraa is 

 not a little bewildering to an ordinary British botanist. Not only 

 does K, linarifolia, Pers., displace E. littoralis, Fries, and E. tenui- 

 fiora. Link., become absorbed in E. latifolia, Sm. ; but England is 

 credited with E. conferta, Pers. {"E. litoralis, Sm. Engl. Fl. 1824"), 

 and Britain with E. diffusa, Woods f ; while E. capitata, Willd., is 

 altogether ignored. The union of E. tenuijlora with E. latifolia 

 seems the more surprising, inasmuch as reference is made to 

 Mr. Britten's paper in ' Journ. Bot.,' 1872, p. 176, as showing that 



* ' Journ. Bot.,' 1878, p. 347 ; 1879, p. ;U8. 



f "Morlaise" is the solitary station given by Mr, Woods liimself in his 

 'Tourist's Flora' for this species; but in ' Consp. Fl. Eur,' we tind "Brit. Gall, 

 bor.-occ. Hisp. bor.-occ. (Galloec), Lusit." [E. diffusa is very distinct from 

 any British form with which we are acquainted. — Ed, Joukx. Box,] 



