140 PHANEROGAMIC BOTANY OP MATTO GROSSO EXPEDITION. 



The Phanerogamic Botany 0/ the Matto (Jrusso J\xpedltion, 1891-92. 

 By Spencer Le M. Moore, B. ttc, F.L.S. Transactions of 

 the Linnean Society of London (Botany), 2nd Ser. iv. 

 pp. 265-516, tt. xxi-xxxix, maps. December, 1895. 



This important contribution to our knowledge of Brazilian 

 botany — of which a summai-y will be found in this Journal for 1893, 

 p. 381 — was read at the Linnean Society by the author on Nov. 2nd, 

 1893, and has thus taken more than two years to produce. Mr. 

 Moore's absence from Enghmd, and his consequent inability to 

 correct the proofs, liave no doubt contributed to a delay in pruiting 

 which, even with this qualilication, appears excessive, although it 

 may have been unavoidable. 



Mr. Moore's interesting introduction extends over thirty pages, 

 the remainder of the paper being occupied with the enumeration 

 and description of the species collected, printed in the handsome, 

 not to say extravagant, style in which the Linnean Society issues 

 its Transactions. Eight new genera are figured and described — 

 Kphedranthus and Stornda (Anonaceae), D^s(^e?«onrt(Scrophulariaceas), 

 Heterucruton (Euphorbiacese), Brosimopsis (Artocarpeae), ZyyelLa 

 (Irideffi), AphyUanun (Aroide^e), and Foyochloa (Gramineaej : in 

 most of these the miuuto structure has been carefully examined 

 and figured. The descriptions of the species and the comparison of 

 some of them with allied forms lead to the conclusion that Mr. 

 Moore takes a somewhat narrower view of specific limitations than 

 that which prevails nowadays, but he has bestowed much trouble 

 and time upon his work, and his opinions are therefore entitled to 

 respect. Botanists working in this country will at any rate be able 

 to form their own judgment,* as the first set of the plants, with 

 Mr. Moore's notes and names, is in the British Museum ; the 

 others being at Berlin, New York, Vienna, and Kew — here curiously 

 called " the Thames-side institution " — respectively. 



One or two points suggest criticism. It is dilticult to see what 

 is gained by the description, often at considerable length, of plants 

 the genus and even the order of which cannot be determined. 

 Pages 330, 331, for example, are mainly occupied with descriptions 

 of three Malpighiacece, of which Mr. Moore says, " Specimiua 

 mane revera fructibus carentia, quapropter quoad genus om- 

 nino dubia " ; and a " plauta incertae sedis," of which even the 

 order (" SimarubacefB?") is doubtful. Nor do we perceive the 

 advantage of describing a plant as '' Bud yea sp. nov." If there 

 is sufficient material to determine it as " sp. nov.," there is enough 

 to entitle it to a name. It seems unnecessary to place " sp. nov." 

 in brackets after the new species — the absence of any other reference 

 implies this : but if it is done at all, it should be done uniformly — 

 at present we are left in doubt as to whether " Galactia Whitehuniei 

 S. Moore " and ^^ AneUema semifoliata C. B. Clarke " are new or old 

 species. The proofs might have been better read : " Glagiou " for 



* M. Chodat. himself no "lumper," has already leierred rohjyala hygro- 

 philoidee to F. timoutoides Chodat, with which Mr. Moore had indicated its 

 affinity. 



