Tasmanniae Spicilegium ;' ' Decades of Fungi,' by the Rev. M. J. 

 Berkeley. " Prodromus Monographic Ficuuni," by Professor Miquel. 

 And the same Monograph is continued wholly through No. 71 and 

 part of No. 72. The latter part of No. 72 being occupied by a pa- 

 per " Sur la Famille des Linees," by Dr. Planchon. 



When any copy of the 'London Journal of Botany' chances to fall 

 under our eyes, on the table of a subscriber, we usually find that 

 portion of it which includes the miscellaneous articles, under the head 

 of " Botanical Information," to be the only portion which has been 

 looked into. The large remainder is usually in that undisturbed state 

 which the vendors of old books so much delight to announce, namely, 

 with pages " uncut." We presume that two circumstances may be 

 taken into account for an explanation of this difference. Most of the 

 other articles, albeit often valuable contributions to botanical science, 

 are still those long and heavy papers on descriptive botany which 

 are rather out of place in a journal, and which are seldom looked at 

 by the readers of periodicals. The "Botanical Information" contains 

 those announcements, on the other hand, for which almost only is a 

 periodical taken and read. Botanists turn to the pages so intituled, 

 because in those pages they expect the intelligence which they wish 

 to have, and which it is usually understood to be the province of a 

 journal to supply them with. This is the first circumstance which 

 causes the pages in question to be cut open, while the rest are neg- 

 lected. The second circumstance to which we allude is, that the 

 words " Botanical Information," in the table of contents, convey no 

 intimation whatever of the items or kind of intelligence to be found 

 under that general title ; and it is thus rendered necessary that the 

 pages should be cut, in order to discover the subordinate titles or 

 subjects of the " Information." We wish the learned editor would take 

 the hint thus offered, and increase the usefulness of his useful perio- 

 dical by acting upon it. First, we could wish that he would give, in 

 the table of contents, the title or subject of each separate article. 

 Secondly, we should be glad to see more news of what is doing in the 

 botanical world; and for this we should be well content to lose any 

 quantity of descriptions of species. The four Nos. of the 'London 

 Journal of Botany,' now before us, contain 160 pages of letter-press, 

 equal to about 100 of the large pages of the ' Phytologist.' Of these 

 160 pages no less than 128 are devoted to three articles, the object 

 of which is to describe species, and all three of which are still only 

 portions or continuations of longer articles on the same subjects. 

 This is, in truth, printing books in fragments, under the cover and 

 Vol. hi. c 



