Bihliogra'pliical Notices. 215 



and similarly, on p. 325, the micellus of the ovulo is alluded to as 

 the " nucleus.''' The renumbering of the figures has not always 

 been attended to ; thus on p. 16 " fig. 16 " should be " fig. 27," 

 and on p. 19, figs. 22 and 19 should be 13 and 11 respeetively ; 

 nor is the Index free from slips, the terms "fastigiate" and 

 " caryopsis " both occurring in it, though unaccountably omitted in 

 the text. 



The account of the various methods of branching is the best we 

 remember to have seen, though we feel inclined to demur to the 

 statement (p. 83) that " the difference between a dichotomy of the 

 growing-point and lateral ramification is not fundamental," and to 

 prefer the terms ' Racemose,' ' Pleiochasial,' and ' Unilateral,' to 

 ' Botryose,' ' Dichasial,' and ' Sympodial ' respectively ; for surely 

 the Dichasium is made up of many ' podia ' equally with the ' ci- 

 cinnus ' and ' bostryx,' though no pseud-axis be apparent. 



It might have been well in classifying the venation of leaves to 

 bring out more prominently the importance of this character in the 

 major groups of the higher plants ; but against this omission we 

 may set off the very useful description (on p. 74) of the bracteoles 

 in Dicotyledons and Monocotyledons. Though we do not attach 

 much importance to terms, perhaps ' orthostichy ' and ' parastichv ' 

 might have been conveniently introduced, whilst ' opposite ' seems"^ a 

 less confusing term than ' intrapetiolar ' for such stipules as those 

 of Astruijalus, seeing that ' iuterpetiolar ' is also in use, in the case 

 of Galium, &c. ; nor can we see why, if ' monoecious ' is correct, 

 ' heteroicism ' should be so spelt. 



In the portions of Part II. relating to the Principles and Systems 

 of Classification much matter mainly of historical interest has been 

 omitted, as is also the table of iSTatural Orders in the ' Contents ' of 

 previous editions. 



The arrangement adopted wisely follows Bentham and Hooker so 

 far as flowering plants are concerned, and removes the Gymnospcrms 

 from their false position between Dicotyledons and Monocotyledons. 

 It retains the great artificial group ' Cryptogamia,' and the con- 

 venient, though physiological classes ' Algre ' and ' Fungi,' and as 



we think, very wisely — divides the vascular Cryptogams into Hetero- 

 sporia and Isosporia (a point upon which Sachs seems doubtful), 

 makes the Char-ales of equivalent rank with the Muscinecr, and the 

 Myxomycetes on a level with Zyfiomycetes. The use of the term 

 Cormopliyta as an equivalent for Acrogens, and not in the sense 

 originally intended by Endlicher, is a pity ; and there does not seem 

 any sufficient reason for making the Protophyta into a class co- 

 ordinate with Algae and Fungi, seeing that the only valid distinction 

 between the two latter groups — namely the physiological test of the 

 presence or absence of chlorophyll — is equally obvious as between 

 Protophycea? and Protomyces. 



The account of the Natural Orders of Phanerogams is enriched 

 with floral formulas from Eichler and numerous notes on fertilization 

 from Hermann Miiller, and on floral development from Payer, 

 besides many passages which show that this part, like the preceding 



