1894. SOME NEW BOOKS. 147 



Fossil Plants. 



Catalogue of the Mesozoic Plants in the Department of Geology, 

 British Museum (Natural History). The Wealden Flora. Part I. — Thallo- 

 phyta-Pteridophyta. By A. C. Seward, M.A., F.G.S. Pp. xl., 179, with 17 

 woodcuts in the te.xt. Plates i.-xi. London, 1894. Printed by order of the 

 Trustees. 



This, like some other British Museum Catalogues, is not a mere list 

 but a detailed description of the specimens, with numerous critical 

 remarks on their systematic position, and a discussion of the present 

 state of our knowledge of individual groups. In an introduction of 

 some five-and-twenty pages, the author summarises the results of 

 previous work on the Wealden flora, and gives an account of records 

 of fossil plants from other countries, but of presumably the same or 

 similar age. Some recent collections of Mr. P. Rufford from the 

 neighbourhood of Hastings have supplied much of the material for 

 the present volume, but reference is also made to the collections of 

 Mantell, Dawson, and Beckles. Three genera and twelve new species 

 are instituted. 



While commending the thoroughness of the work, and the care 

 with which facts previously known are considered in the light of fresh 

 knowledge, we would at the same time draw attention to one or two 

 points affecting mainly the principle of the book or its arrangement. 

 Thus, while it is of the utmost importance to quote synonymy, it is 

 well also to avoid such a waste of space as is entailed by the chrono- 

 logical arrangement which has been adopted. For instance, under 

 Weichselia Manielli, we have an account of the annual variation in the 

 naming, from 1825 to 1890, occupying nearly two pages (pp. 114-16), 

 in which one synonym, Lonchopteris Mantelli, occurs fourteen times. 

 Surely it would have been better to lump all the references to 

 this name in one paragraph. Similarly, on p. 27, under Equisetites 

 Burchardti , this name occurs a dozen times. And why are we made 

 to seek in the obscurity of the text for references to the plates ? 



The description of individual specimens is, we think, sometimes 

 carried to an excess. For instance, under the species just mentioned, 

 we find entries such as these : 



V. 1070 and V. 1070a. A short piece of stem with three tubers, 

 and another piece with four. 



V. 1070b. Fragments of stems and several tubers. Two tubers 

 shown in contact. 



V. 2818 and V. 2819. Fragment of the same species. 



As each item means a paragraph, no little space is thus occupied, 

 whereas a bare quotation of the register numbers would have served 

 the purpose. 



A far more important point, and one affecting a great deal of 

 recent palaeontological work, is the foundation of species on material, 

 the insufficiency of which the botanist shudders to contemplate. To 

 give one instance: Equisetites Yokoyama, sp. nov., is founded on some 

 tubers and fragments of stems, the tubers differing from a species 

 previously described " in their smaller size and narrower elliptical 

 form." It is well to note such differences, but to erect a new species 

 without the support of other evidence, save locality, is to prejudice the 

 undoubted value of the work as a whole. By the description of new 

 species from often badly defined fragments of fronds, or other vegetative 

 organs, specific names are reduced to marks of identification of 

 individual specimens, and a comparison of facts in recent and fossil 

 botany is rendered extremely laborious or practically impossible. 



