3G0 Bibliographical Notices. 



cicnt reason for neglecting all generic names and characters. This 

 may be convenient for the mere collector, but effectually excludes 

 him from the knowledge of the structure of the fructification ac- 

 quired by the study of the generic characters as given by any one of 

 the botanists to whom he refers. Because A. Gray, Roth, Babington, 

 and Hooker have been led to call the "same group of species" by 

 different names is no reason for not pointing out the characteristics 

 of the group, about which we believe that these authors do not ma- 

 terially differ. 



It may be that the genera as at present accepted are to some ex- 

 tent artificial, — that is, if British Ferns are alone considered; but are 

 they quite so artificial if all Ferns are taken into account ? And as 

 they are founded upon structure, is it not better, in a " school edi- 

 tion," that even they, as the best that our present knowledge sup- 

 plies, should be placed before the reader ? We certainly think so ; 

 for there is much education for the observing faculties in determining 

 these genera from a study of structure. The effect of neglecting the 

 generic names has caused only the specific terms to be used in this 

 book — a step, as it seems to us, in the wrong direction. Mr. New- 

 man says that "authors plume themselves on the number and length 

 of the Latin appellations they bestow on each species: no less than 

 SO Latin names have been assigned to Jilix-fcemina and its varieties, 

 and 4/ to Scolopendrium and its varieties." We think that this is 

 rather misrepresenting the matter. No botanist does so, although 

 gardeners do give useless names to an infinite number of forms. 

 What botanist cares for the 47 forms of Scolopendrium 1 If we look 

 at the books published by the above-named authors, we shall proba- 

 bly find not a single one of these ever-varying forms noticed by 

 name, but only the collective species characterized. Under the 

 the >. Jilix-fa'tnina some two or three of the more marked and con- 

 stant forms arc usually distinguished. These botanists certainly do 

 not "plume themselves" on the length or number of the names 

 given to the plants. 



The author takes credit to himself for going back to the very 

 oldest names in all cases — a very good thing, doubtless, if done with 

 judgment; but where is the advantage of hunting-up some obsolete 

 name when all the best botanists have agreed to accept one uniform 

 nomenclature? Why should we add to the confusion caused by 

 synonymy, by using Polypodium myrrhidifolium (Villars) for the 

 Cystop)teris montana (Link), even if Villars really meant that plant 

 by that name? And why defend it by finding and using another 

 obsolete name, Polypodium montanum (Vogl), for the Polypodium 

 (or Aspidium or Lastred) Oreopteris of all the best botanical au- 

 thorities of all countries? lie says that as "the principle of restor- 

 ing prior names is now universal in zoology, I can only regret it is 

 so frequently disregarded in the sister science." We thought that 

 zoologists were very generally protesting against the attempt to 

 change the recognized names for the uncertain and ill-defined ones 

 of old authors. They think, and with much reason, that we are 

 only confusing the nomenclature, and unnecessarily adding to the 



