460 BOOK-NOTES, NEWS, ETC. 



(No. 42). P. Knuth, ' Ueber den Nachweis von Nektarien auf 

 chemischem Wege.' — N. C. Kindberg, 'Ueber die Systematik der 

 pleurocarpischen Laubmoose.' 



Bot. Gazette (17 Sept.). — J. M. Coulter, 'Origin of Gymno- 

 sperms and tbe seed habit.' — F. De F. Heald, ' Regeneration as 

 exhibited by Mosses' (2 pi.). — F. C. Harrison, 'Bacterial contents 

 of hailstones.' 



Bot. Zeitung (1 Oct.). — W. Belajeff, ' Ueber die mannUchen 

 ProthaUien der Wasserfarne (Hydropterides) ' (2 pi.). 



Bull, de VHerh. Boissier (8 Oct.). — F. Stephani, ' Species 

 Hepaticarum.' — R. Schlechter, ' Monographie der Disperideae.' 

 — A. deCoiucy, ' Burgos au point de vue botanique.' — G. Gaillard, 

 'Rosa pimpmella'folia X rubrifolia.' — H. Christ, ' Filices novse.' — 

 R. Chodat, PohjgaJa Cabra, sp. n. 



Erythea (22 Sept.).— S. B. Parish, ' Plants of S. California.' 



Gardeners' Chronicle (8 Oct.). — G. Massee, Puccinia Hieracii 

 (fig. 77). — W. B. Hemsley, ' Cactacece, of Galapago Islands' (fig. 75). 



Journal de Botanique (" 16 Juin," received 13 Oct.). . Hue, 



' Causerie sur les P armelia ' {Qoni.). — A. Franchet, ' Plantarum 

 sinensium ecloge secunda.' — (" 1-16 Juillet," received 21 Oct.). 

 P. Van Tieghem, ' Structure de quelques ovules.' — A. Franchet, 

 'Plantarum sinensium' (cont.). 



MalpigJiia (fasc. v.-viii. ; received 22 Oct.). — A. Colozza, ' Con- 

 tributo air anatomia delle Alstroemeriee ' (2 pi.). — D. Saccardo, 

 < Contribuzione alia micologia Veneta e Modenese ' (2 pi.). — C. 

 Avetta, Char a Pelosiana, sp. n. 



Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschrift (Oct.). — F. Czafek, 'Ueber einen inter- 

 essanten Fall von Arbeitstheilung an Laubblattern.' — J. Cela- 

 kovsky, ' Ueber petaloide ..Staubgefiisse von Philadelphus und 

 Deutzia.' — W. Lipsky, ' Uber Seseli Lehmanni.' — K. Fritsch, 

 'Ueber einige hybride Caryophyllaceen.' — V. Schiffner, ' Neue 

 Moose der bohmischen Flora.' — J. Rick, ' Zur Pilzkunde Vorarl- 

 bergs' (concl.). — J. Murr, 'Die Piloselloiden Oberosterreichs ' 

 (concL). 



BOOK-NOTES, NEWS, dc. 



At a recent botanical examination of the Civil Service Com- 

 mission the following appeared among the questions : " Give a brief 

 account of the general influence of Kew on the development of 

 botany." It seems to us that such a question was out of place, as 

 it presupposed an extensive knowledge of matters which hardly 

 come within the limits of a simple botanical examination. We 

 assume, of course, that only the Royal Gardens are intended, but 

 it would be difficult to give, in the limits of an ordinary answer, 

 anything like a full account of their influence on botany, from the 

 days of the Aitons to the culminating period of the Hookers, 



