406 Bibliographical Notices. 



Dr. Boott has adoptee! the name of C. magellanica (Lam.) for the 

 plant which has usually been called C. irrigua in Europe because 

 the Antarctic American plant so named by Lamarck is not specifi- 

 cally different from the Arctic C. irrigua. Such being the case, 

 there can be no doubt that a strict application of the laws regulating 

 nomenclature would require this change of name. As long as the 

 plant was supposed to be confined to the southern end of America, 

 Lamarck's name was applicable and appropriate ; but when it is found 

 to abound in the northern parts of Europe and America, the Linneeau 

 rule may be applied and the erroneous name allowed to drop. Lin- 

 nfeus says, in his ' Philosophia Botanica,' — " Locum non debere no- 

 men specificum intrare, multse rationes suadent non \niicus 



est locus ejusdem speciei." 



There is also another curious question relative to nomenclature 

 raised by C. irrigua. Who first used that term as the name of a 

 species ? By Wahlenberg and early botanists it is applied to a va- 

 riety — a use which confers no claim of priority upon it. In common 

 with Dr. Boott, we have failed in tracing its specific use to any work 

 preceding Hoppe's ' Caricologia Germanica' (1826). He says, 

 " von Smith als eigene Art bestimmt, und C. irrigua genannt worden 

 ist," but gives no idea of the place of publication. Koch quotes 

 " Smith, secund. TIartm. Scand. Fl. ed. 2. 255." We have not that 

 work at hand, and cannot therefore confirm his statement ; but it is 

 worthy of remark that the " Smith" is followed by a full stop (.), 

 which, if intentional (and it is so printed in both editions of his ' Sy- 

 nopsis'), shows that it is an abbreviated name, and therefore does 

 not refer to Sir J. E. Smith. Ledebour, in the ' Flora Rossica,' gives 

 Smith as the authority for the name, and adds as a reference " Addit. 

 Spec," whatever that may mean. 



Unfortunately such works as this before us are necessarily placed 

 beyond the reach of most botanists by their cost. \\\ the present 

 case, the author has most liberally and extensively given his book to 

 those institutions and individuals to whom it seemed likely to be 

 useful ; and when we remember at how great an expense to him it 

 has been produced, we cannot too much admire his munificence. 



We have already expressed the high value that we place upon the 

 descriptive and critical part of this book, but have to add that the 

 ])lates, although uncoloured and only slightly shaded, are of the 

 kind most useful to the botanist. They usually represent one or 

 more complete specimens of the natural size, and an abundance of 

 magnified figures of the essential parts. 



In short, it is a book that all opulent botanists (we fear that they 

 are few), and libraries which possess works relative to natural science, 

 ought to obtain, so as in some slight degree to repay the expense in- 

 curred by the author. 



We may perhaps venture to hope that Dr. Boott will not conclude 

 his labours upon this genus of plants without publishing a complete 

 synopsis of the species included in it. It is what we have long looked 

 for from him, and for the production of which no living botanist has 

 the same qualifications. 



