38 



NATURE 



[March 9, 191 1 



been critical enough to be of any value to the anthro- 

 pologist. 



Prof. Naville is quite justified in congratulating (on 

 the introduction which he prefixes to the volume) Mrs. 

 Tirard on the extent of her knowledge of the Egfyptian 

 religious writings. It is her uncritical treatment of 

 her own knowledge that we regret. There are few 

 actual mistakes in matters of fact in the book, the 

 most serious perhaps being the statement that the 

 word ntakhertt, "justified," is never used of the 

 living, only of the dead; this is incorrect, as instances 

 of makheru being used of the living are known. In 

 a matter of faith rather than of reason, we do not 

 share her belief tliat the " Prince of Wales's Feathers " 

 are derived from the Egyptian feather symbolical of 

 "Truth," or rather, "Right." Where are the inter- 

 mediate stages between the old Eg'yptian feather- 

 emblem and the day when the Black Prince did not 

 take the three ostrich plumes from the helmet of the 

 slain KinjTf of Bohemia? For we know that at Poitiers 

 the blind king's crest was an eagle's wing, and that 

 the picturesque legend of the origin of the Prince of 

 Wales's Feathers has no basis in fact. 



In her citations, Mrs. Tirard usually follows the 

 masterly translation of Prof. Naville. 



ANATOMY OF SEDGES. 

 Anatomy of the British Carices. By F. C. Crawford. 

 Pp. xiv+124 + xx plates. (Edinburgh: Oliver and 

 Boyd, printed for- private circulation, 1910.) Price 

 75. 6d. net. 



FRANCIS CRAWFORD was an enthusiastic 

 worker in pursuits that attracted him ; a remark- 

 able man in that, after success in business enabled 

 him to retire at forty-five, he could crowd so much 

 acquisition of natural history knowledge and collec- 

 tions into the remaining twelve years of his life. 

 Botanist, ornithologist, geologist — an all too brief 

 biographical sketch of the author precedes the intro- 

 duction by Prof. Balfour, who, as his lifelong friend, 

 ^[■ives in a few touches fuller insight into the lovable 

 character of the man. His sudden death, soon after 

 the MS. was in the printer's hands, in February, igo8, 

 deprived the work of the author's revision ; and Prof. 

 Balfour, who edited it, deemed it best, in spite of 

 its unconventional phraseology, to let the book go 

 forth "as Frank Crawford wrote it." 



Crawford had no laboratory training, and, taking 

 to botanical work late in life, could not readily acquire 

 the use of its technical terms, or always consent to 

 their fitness. "If people can't understand plain 

 terms," he used to say, when his vernacular expres- 

 sions were criticised, " so much the worse for them." 

 This accounts for the frequent blend of scientific and 

 homely phrases. The section of a midrib (p. 49) is 

 described as a "round knob with a blunt point"; the 

 stem of C. remota (p. 37) is "roundish and difficult 

 to define, very bumpy " ; the section of a leaf of C. 

 hirta is " long, narrow, twisting about " ; and in 

 another species the "vascular bundles . . . don't reach 

 to the epidermis." But these quaintnesses would not 

 puzzle any reader. 



What is a more troublesome deviation from usage 

 will be found in the abbreviations and technical terms 

 NO. 2 1. 1^8. VOL. 5&~k 



that need explaining, being relegated to casual foot* 

 notes. What is the meaning of the sentence on p. 8, 

 "The bundle of vulpina var. nemorosa is in the median 

 plane, but the patch of sch. does not reach to the 

 apex, there is therefore a point of par."?' The reader 

 looks in vain for a list of abbreviations ; it is in fooU 

 notes on pp. 2, 7, that to the two used here and 

 constantly further on he finds a clue. The terms 

 "involute" and "revolute" bear the meaning of in- 

 curved and recurved (p. 4), while "lumen" is not 

 explained at all. 



Such minor flaws detract, however, but little from 

 the real value of an admirable book, which has the 

 great merit of being pioneer work, at least in regard 

 to this genus. The field botanist will be grateful for 

 the inside details of stem, leaf, and rhizome, of which 

 for the most part he has been woefully ignorant. .\U 

 these details are set forth in the clearest style, in type 

 that leaves nothing to be desired. 



By Prof. Balfour's advice, Crawford tells us in his 

 introduction, he collected, with the help of the Rev* 

 E. S. Marshall and some others, fresh material to 

 work on in preference to dried herbarium specimens. 

 He first photographed a flower portion, and put other 

 portions in spirit for winter work. From these he took 

 sections of the stem, leaf, rhizome, and root, and 

 prepared photomicrographs of the best, magnifying 

 about 40 diameters. Little or nothing was obtained 

 from dissecting the flowers; these are therefore not 

 touched on in the "Anatomy." Many sections of the 

 other parts were selected to figure, and with drawings 

 of highly magnified stomata. See, occupy twent}' 

 plates. These are done with a clearness of definition 

 and a fidelity of detail that reflect great credit on 

 bot'n photographer and engraver. 



The description of the figures in the plates, p. 115, 

 is concise and accurate enough, but the numbers of 

 the plates might have been added for convenience of 

 reference, and as the species in this list of figures 

 are in no order, and several occur again and again, 

 the index should have embraced these pages as well 

 as the rest. 



In the special anatomy, as Crawford terms his 

 descriptive account of the species, which forms the 

 body of the work, each part of the plant in section 

 (below the inflorescence) is given in detached para- 

 graphs. C. chordorrhiza, Ehrh., is a capital example, 

 being fully illustrated as well as minutely described. 

 Crawford discovered in this species remarkable 

 divergences between its aerial and underground 

 rhizomes. There is no doubt where this came from, 

 as there is but one British locality. The same witihi 

 C. trinervis, which he collected at Ormesby by th<f 

 present writer's direction. But the locality is a 

 desideratum in almost every case, and might 

 supplied from the labelled specimens or photograph^ 

 which have been deposited at the Royal Botani 

 Garden, Edinburgh. 



Most interesting is the success attained in diff'ef 

 entiating more thoroughly the triad so perplexing tq 

 novices, C. laevigata, Sm.. hincrvis and disians; in 

 confirming on the whole the suspected origin ol 

 several hybrids, and in testing the claims of some 

 varieties Amonc: these last the evidence does not 



