kuntze's kevisio generum plantarum. 495 



more than we can imagine ; and who is to determine what descriptive 

 volume is a ' monograpli,' or what flora a ' large ' one, is equally 

 difficult to understand; and how are they to determine in many 

 cases whether the author has or has not followed the Paris Code 

 of 1867? or will calling a brochure a 'monograph' make it one ? " 



Supplementary emendations to the code of botanical nomen- 

 clature are given in three languages, German, English, and 

 French ; also a complete edition of the Paris Code as proposed 

 to be amended is given in Italian. 



In a very useful section Dr. Kuntze supplies information ad- 

 ditional to what is given in Pritzel's Thesaurus relating to the 

 exact dates of publication of botanical literature. From the nature 

 of the case this is fragmentary, and capable of further additions, 

 which it is to be hoped bibliographers will contribute from time to 

 time. A case in point is that of Palisot de Beauvois' Flore crOware 

 et de Benin. This work consists of two volumes bearing the dates 

 on their titles of 1801 (=12 of the French Republic) and 1807 

 respectively; and each volume comprises ten parts, which were 

 issued separately, each part containing six plates. It appears from 

 Pritzel that the last part of the second volume did not appear until 

 1818 or 1821, and from internal evidence it is clear that many parts 

 of the second volume were subsequent to 1807, as Dr. Kuntze points 

 out. It may be mentioned that there exist in the Botanical Depart- 

 ment of the Natural History Museum fronts of the covers of parts 

 vii. and xii., which show that these parts, belonging respectively to 

 plates 37 to 42 and 67 to 72, bore the dates of 1806 and 1810. 

 Some portions of the work were apparently published in advance ; 

 indeed, Napoleoria, tab. 78 in part xiii. (1810), was published as 

 early as 1806 under the name Napoleoncea. From Flora, 1822, i. 

 Beilage i. band 1, p. 4, it appears that part xvii. tt. 97-102, was 

 published in 1818. 



Dr. Kuntze's reforms and criticism on nomenclature are calcu- 

 lated to disturb the equanimity of many of our most respected and 

 especially of our older botanists, for they involve unexpected and 

 often wholesale changes in nomenclature, and are highly contro- 

 versial in character. It is only fair to bear in mind that, while he 

 is full of deep erudition on the literature of the subject, he is no 

 mere bookman, but also is very well acquainted with plants both 

 in the field and in the herbarium, and he therefore approaches the 

 questions as to the best methods of naming plants adequately armed 

 with the proper weapons for the purpose. In this part of his work 

 he enumerates thousands of plants of his own collection, including 

 some new genera and more than 400 new species of vascular plants, 

 with descriptions, besides numerous varieties ; the chief portion of 

 these was determined by himself, but rather more than one hundred 

 of the new species are due to twenty-one other botanists who have 

 contributed help in special groups. In this way his methods are ex- 

 hibited in a practical form, and such defects as are inherent therein 

 are exposed to public view, and can be condemned where necessary. 



The collections were made partly in South America and partly 

 in South Africa; the South American journey was taken from 



