58 Bibliographical Notices. 



neglected by those who are attached to the study of European 

 plants. 



The descriptive part of the work forms a volume of more than 

 750 pages. It is accompanied by a smaller volume consisting of an 

 " Introduction," " Notions Elementaires de Botanique," including a 

 Glossary, a very complete " Clef analytique de la Flore," and " Pro- 

 prietes et usages des plantes et etymologies de leurs noms." 



The descriptive volume has the peculiarities, both advantageous 

 and otherwise, which are usual in French Floras. The descriptions 

 of both genera and species are very elaborate and most accurate ; 

 but the synonymy is almost wholly neglected, and the writings of 

 foreign botanists seem to be little known to the author : German 

 Floras are occasionally noticed, but those of England are scarcely 

 recognized. Tliere are no definite specific characters, and the reader 

 is put to considerable trouble in order to discover the distinctions 

 between the species ; for the analytical tables are far from furnishing 

 them, except to a very slight extent. This is a fault common to all 

 the best modern Floras of France : indeed, that most valuable portion 

 of the Linnfeau system seems never to have established itself there. 

 This defect must tend to the disadvantage of the French botanists ; 

 for many persons will not take the somewhat considerable trouble of 

 discovering the characters upon which their species are founded, and 

 thus they will suffer undeserved neglect. 



M. Boreau announces in his Introduction that he belongs to that 

 school which considers all permanent varieties as species (including, 

 of course, cultivated plants), and consequently he admits a multitude 

 of what many of our most eminent botanists call " false species." 

 We incline to a middle course, believing that many of the plants 

 pointed out by MM. A. Jordan, Boreau, and others, are really specifi- 

 cally distinct ; but are nevertheless convinced that numbers of others 

 have not the requisite constancy of character. For instance, we 

 cannot believe that Draha verna, Linn., consists of nine species, with 

 M. A. Jordan ; nor of five, as recorded in the Flora before us. It is 

 to be feared that in that case the Linneean canon — that the genus or 

 species shows the character, not the character the species — is too 

 much neglected. Those who are accustomed to examine the minute 

 external structure of plants have much reason for guarding them- 

 selves against this error, into which it seems natural for them to fall. 

 But, on the other hand, those botanists seem to be at least equally 

 in error who would neglect the more inconspicuous distinctions, and 

 rashly, although perhaps conveniently for themselves and their be- 

 lieving followers, declare all plants betv/een which they cannot find a 

 good "paper" character, to be only varieties of each other. The 

 reviewer believes that nature has specifically separated many jdants 

 which the acutencss of botanists has not succeeded in distinguishing 

 by good definitions, and that we do not advance science when we 

 decide authoritatively that the want of such definitions is conclusive 

 against the existence of the species. He protests also, in common 

 with om- French contenii)oraries, against the modern doctrine, that a 

 series of specimens from various i)arts of the world, such as arc found 



