321 
NEW PUBLICATIONS. 
Conspectus Criticus Diatomacearum Danicarum : Kritisk Oversigt over 
de Danske Diatomeer, af Dr. Ph. P. A. C. Heiberg. Copenhagen : 
W. Prior, London: Williams and Norgate, 1863. 
The laborious and accurate works of O. F. Müller, some of them 
published more than a century ago, were the first extensive and im- 
portant results of the application of the microscope to the study of 
minute animal and vegetable forms; and so much careful observation 
and accurate description do they contain, that they must still be con- 
sulted by every working naturalist, and will no doubt yet supply, as 
they have many times already supplied, a rich quarry for closet natu- 
ralists. He observed and figured at least eight species of Danish 
Diatomacee. Lyngbye, in his ‘Tentamen Hydrophytologie Danice’ 
(1818), described twenty-eight species, Hornemann (1837) and 
Oersted (1844) increased the number; but no detailed or complete 
account of the Danish species had been published until this volume of 
M. Heiberg appeared. 
` It was a fortunate circumstance for algologists that the first im- 
portant local * Flora Diatomacearum ' was written by Smith, illustrated 
by West, and published by Smith and Beck. Each did his work as it 
had never been done before. The publishers produced a book that 
would grace a drawing-room table, the draughtsman surprised every 
one with the beauty and accuracy of his illustrations, and the descrip- 
tions of the author will be models for future workers. The influence 
of all this is evident in the work before us,—in descriptions, illustra- 
tions, and typography, it equals, if it does not surpass, the * British 
iatomaceæ.’ But that the Danish language (unfortunately little 
. known in Britain) is used throughout, it looks as if it were a supple- 
ment to the earlier work, and, indeed, British algologists will find that 
they must use it as suc 
While the changes duced by M. Heiberg are fair and just 
regards some species, in respect to others we think he has oreroked 
important differences of specific value. Thus, in the genus Epithemia, 
while we are satisfied that the peculiarities given as characters for 
E. Argus, E. alpestris, and E. longicornis exist in nature and are re- 
cognizable, yet we doubt if they are of sufficient I to make 
VOL. II. [OCTOBER 1, 1864.] 
^ 
