AXDi;oE(jii'.\r a>:d GY^oKCI^^r 223 



by Lang (1912) returns to t\\Q gynaeceum (diphthong) with androe- 

 cium (p. 483). In the Glossary of Botanical Terms (B. D. Jack- 

 son, 1916) gynaeceum is recorded as derived from ywaiKelov, ignoring 

 Roeper, though the Latin gynecium and the English (Gen. Plant.) 

 form gynoeciiim are included as variants. The Oxford Dictionary, 

 unfortunately restricted to books published in this country, with 

 characteristic ineptitude in botanical matters gives gynoecium (diph- 

 thong) as "the usual but incorrect form oi gynaeceum'''' (diphthong), 

 "having been supposed to be from ohloi', house, and under the 

 influence of this notion androecium has been formed as its correla- 

 tive " — an interesting example of literary stupidity, all the points 

 being incorrect ; since, as already indicated, androecium is so far the 

 elder twin of the pair, the Avord is legitimately formed from okos, 

 and it was the usual form in this country only up to 1875 or so. 



Apart from the question of the oe and ae, it would also appear 

 that continental writers and modern botanists have largely followed 

 Sachs, retaining the -eum of Roeper (1826), while English writers 

 tend to the -iumoi Bentham (1832), The difference between e and i 

 is quite optional, and both may be found in latinized terms, though 

 the presumable association with -olKthn- might lead to -iU7n as nearest 

 in intention (Bentham). Apart from any philological bias, it may 

 be noted that while -eum as a suffix is rare in botany (except in 

 adjectives) ; -imn, whatever may be its etymological origin, is a 

 commonplace ending of many words in general use, of the type : — 

 archegonium, antheridium, archesponmn, ainphitkecium, sporan- 

 gium, gonidium, sporidium, &c., and it may be taken as a convenient 

 and generalized termination. From such a standpoint of mere 

 litemry convenience the emended spelling androecium and gynoecium, 

 as established by Bentham and Hooker (Gen. Plant.), omitting the 

 unnecessary diphthong t^^pe, may be established as sufficiently legi- 

 timate to satisfy all claims, and the words as written in the heading 

 of this note are entitled to stand permanently. To return to the 

 -sum of Roeper may be satisfying to the more pedantic ; the atti- 

 tude of Bentham is good enough for any English botanist ; but the 

 use of ae instead of oe, is not only distinctly wrong but extremely 

 foolish. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 



LXXVI. Henry W. Bubgess's ' Eidodendeox.* 



This work, described on its singularly ugly title-page as " Eido- 

 DENDHON : Views of the general Character and Appearance of Trees, 

 foreign and indigenous, connected with Picturesque Scenery, by 

 H. W. Burgess : London, 1827," is, so far as the plates are concerned, 

 of no botanical importance and hence rarely finds a place in botanical 

 libraries. There is, however, a copy in the Department of Botany, 

 and the book presents a few points of bibliographical interest which 

 may as well be put on record. 



