HENFRETS BOTANY. 79 



ciples of classification, nomenclature, etc., strike us as sound 

 and good throughout ; and in the account of the natural or- 

 ders a great amount of information, such as the medical stu- 

 dent needs, is given in a comparatively small space. Errors 

 or misconceptions will necessarily occur in the compilation of 

 such an amount of materials, treating of structure, affinities, 

 distribution, sensible properties, and medicinal or economical 

 uses. They are not more numerous than was to be ex- 

 pected, and we are not disposed to make them the subject of 

 criticism. 



We may remark, in passing, that, as respects the morphol- 

 ogy of the andrcBcium in Fumariacece^ the name of the writer 

 of the present notice is referred to, by some misconception, 

 as adopting Lindley's well-known hypothesis of the splitting 

 of two stamens into halves ; whereas he has maintained a 

 very different view. And then this is mentioned as " offer- 

 ing a phenomenon of chorisis," which in that view is quite 

 incomprehensible to us. 



We were surprised at the statement that the bark and 

 leaves of Hamamelis Virginica "are astringent and contain 

 an acrid volatile oil " (p. 207). We trace it back to Lindley's 

 "Vegetable Kingdom" (p. 784), and find, "The kernels of 

 Hamamelis Virginica are oily and eatable. The leaves and 

 bark are very astringent, and also contain a peculiar acrid 

 essential oil ; " and this, we find, comes from Endlicher's 

 " Enchiridion." How did this bland and inert plant acquire 

 such a reputation ? Dr. Barton, who has figured it, says 

 nothing of its possessing any sensible properties or usefid 

 qualities at all, except its use for divining-rods ; nor do 

 Pursh, Bigelow, Elliott, Darlington, etc., allude to any pop- 

 ular reputation of such qualities. No sign of any essential 

 oil is to be detected in the foliage, and prolonged mastication 

 of the leaves and bark while we write yields not the slightest 

 trace of acridity and hardly any of astringency ; no more, 

 certainly, than a Beech leaf. We never heard of the seeds 

 being eaten ; and as they are " about the size of a grain of 

 barley," or not much larger, and have a thick bony coat, they 

 are not likely to become an important article of diet. After 



