. NEW PUBLICATIONS. 387 
here the dawn of a better appreciation of species than we have known 
in the past. 
Prodromus Systematis Naturalis -Regni Vegetabilis. Editore A. De 
Candolle. Pars XV., Sectio Posterior, Fasc. IL, sistens Euphor- 
bieas. Auctore J. Müller, Argoviensi. . Paris. 1866. . 
- On receiving this work we ventured to characterize it as remarkable 
for the number of old synonyms which have been cleared up by the 
examination of authentie specimens, for the profound treatment of the 
subjeet, and the remarkable intelligence of the natural method shown 
by its author (ante, p. 304). Our continued examination confirms us 
in this judgment. Dr. Müller handles in a masterly manner this very 
large, obscure, and very difficult Order. Not only have the genera and. 
species been in a state of great confusion, but even the position that 
the Order itself should occupy in the vegetable kingdom has been a 
subject of conflicting opinions. The apetalous character of the Euro- 
pean representatives of the Order has too much influenced botanists in 
placing it among the Monochlamydezs. This is the position it occu- 
pies in most Floras, and in all our British Manuals. In the Prodromus 
it is also placed among the apetalous Orders, apparently indicating 
that M. De Candolle takes this view of its position, although in his 
description of the Order we find these characters, “ Corolla polypetala, 
vel rarissime gamopetala, vel nulla." In forming a true estimate of 
the relations of the Order, the polypetalous genera, which are the bulk 
of it, must be taken into account. If the apetalous structure of some 
genera, in other Orders, as Ranunculaceae, is not sufficient to set aside 
the polypetalous character of the Order, we see no reason why it 
should have so much weight in Ewphorbiaceg. But this character of 
the presence or absence of a corolla is properly considered of no value 
in aberrant genera or even in aberrant suborders, else would we be 
obliged to break up many Natural Orders, and it would be difficult to 
say where we could stop, for, as Dr. Dickson has shown (Journ. of 
Bot. Vol. III. p. 209), from the development of the organs, those parts 
of the flower in some Rosacea, which every one invariably calls petals, 
are not petals at all, but stamens with petaloid apices. We would 
prefer placing the EZuphorbiacee beside Rhamnacee or Malvaceae, from 
which it differs chiefly in its unisexuality, rather than with Urticacec, ` 
with which it has much less in common. 
