244 



NATURE 



[April 28, 1910 



work funning' to less than 500 pages. Many insects 

 are described and discussed individually which are 

 not particularly troublesome, and might, at any rate, 

 have been treated collectively. We see no mention of 

 the beech-bark coccus, a pest which is causing grave 

 concern both here and on the Continent among owners 

 of beech woods. The remainder of the work is occu- 

 pied by a detailed description of some 550 species of 

 " native and acclimatised " trees and shrubs. A 

 description of the characteristics of each natural 

 order prefaces the description of the species belonging 

 to it. This space, we think, might have been better 

 occupied with a discussion of the g-enus. A descrip- 

 tion of the great order of Ranunculaceae, for instance, 

 has only a very g-eneral bearing on Clematis, and it 

 was scarcely worth while to preface the description 

 of the solitary rubiaceous species here dealt with by 

 an account of the great order to which it belongs. 



The old problem of the " popular " name has been 

 rhet by a brave effort on the part of the authors to 

 provide nearly all the plants they mention with one. 

 If a species had not one before they appear to have 

 invented one. But the result is not always happy. 

 We hardly know whether such a name as " Narrow- 

 leaved Jasmine Box " for Phillyrea angustifolia (p. 

 107) indicates too dull or too vivid an imagination, 

 for this shrub has no relationship with the box, nor 

 does it bear any resemblance to the jasmine either in 

 leaf or flower. The very next species, P. decora, is 

 called "Vilmorin's Mock Privet," which is neither 

 pretty nor correct: 



The descriptions are carefully done, although some- 

 what too technical for the amateur, as for example 

 where the flowers of common oak are described as 

 "monoecious, anemophilous, proterogynous," and 

 where the fruit of magnolia is termed an "etaerio of 

 follicles." Still, accuracy is the chief thing, and we 

 do not notice many serious lapses. One of the worst 

 is the description of Ceanothus rigidus as a deciduous 

 climber with alternate leaves (p. 48). It is a per- 

 fectly evergreen bush with opposite leaves. Then 

 Acer circinatum is said to have " greenish-white " 

 flowers. Anyone who has had a personal acquaint- 

 ance with this tree could not fail to have noticed its 

 drooping corymbs of reddish-purple flowers, which 

 make it perhaps the most attractive of commonly cul- 

 tivated maples in regard to blossom. 



The number of cultivated species of hardy trees and 

 shrubs now exceeds 3000, and it would be an im- 

 possible task to select one-sixth of these for treatment 

 and satisfy everyone. Yet the selections here made 

 betray an indifferent acquaintance with some groups. 

 Berberis empetrifolia, a rare shrub seldom seen in 

 good condition, is included, but of B. stenophylla, in 

 some respects the finest of all flowering evergreens, 

 not a word is said ; and whilst a weedy shrub like 

 Stephanandra Tanakae is described, a fine handsome 

 bush like Exochorda grandiflora, its near relative, is 

 ignored. But the worst instance of this defect in 

 these volumes is the inclusion of the American plane 

 {Platanus occidentalis). The authors say this is to be 

 found in "parks, gardens, avenues," and that it is 

 "usually larger and more rapid in growth than the 

 Eastern plane " (p. 144, vol. ii.). We had thought it 

 NO. 21 13, VOL. 83] 



well known to all tree-experts by now that the .Ameri- 

 can plane is absolutely worthless in this country. So 

 far from being comparable with the Eastern plane, 

 there is not, we believe, a single tree in these islands 

 with a trunk 6 inches in diameter. All the trees so 

 called are forms of P. acerifolia, the common plane of 

 London. Thus is an old error dating from Phillip 

 Miller's time, and continued by Loudon, again per- 

 petuated. The cultural notes will be found useful, 

 although an absence of personal experience is again 

 at times evident, as when it is stated that Cistus 

 ladaniferus, from the sun-baked hills of Spain and 

 Portugal, is suitable for shady places (p. xxxi). 



Whilst we have felt bound to point out the obvious 

 defects of this work, it must not be supposed we are 

 blind to its merits. These are many, and to the great 

 bulk of the matter no exception can be taken. For 

 the drawings of Mr. Newall we have nothing but 

 praise ; they are botanically accurate as well as 

 artistic. The coloured plates are of unequal merit ; 

 the picture of Magnolia conspicua, for instance, is 

 either wrongly named or badly coloured, but this we 

 suspect is more the colour printer's fault than the 

 artist's. The printing, typography, and paper are all 

 admirable. 



ANTEDILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY. 



The Dates of Genesis. A Comparison of the Biblical 

 Chronology with that of other Ancient Nations. 

 With an Appendix on Chronological Astronomy. 

 By Rev. F. A. Jones Pp. 333. (London : Kings- 

 gate Press, 1909.) Price 55. net. 

 THIS is one of those strange little works which are 

 continually issuing from the clerical workshoi> 

 with the aim of expounding the early chronology of 

 the Bible. Mr. Jones has many glimpses of real know- 

 ledge of archaeological science, and has evidently read 

 widely on the subject, but not always wisely, and he 

 perpetrates several blunders. The most patent 

 impossibility in the book is the absurd date assigned 

 to the building of the Great Pyramid, viz., 2170 B.C., ; 

 on the authority of Sir John Herschel. This is utterly | 

 impossible, on historical grounds. ^ 



We do not know what to make of Mr. Jones's views | 

 of modern scientific knowledge of the beginnings of ;) 

 human civilisation. He seems to think that human 

 beings were originally placed in the world in a highly ' 

 civilised condition, and ingeniously explains away the 

 damning fact of the gradual evolution of man's tools 

 and culture from the Older to the Newer Stone age 

 and then to the age of Metal. He says that the 

 ancient flint implements may indicate not "an early 

 period in the development of art," but 



"express limitation of opportunity. Wanderers froni 

 a civilised centre would, unless possessed of consider- 

 able personal ability, soon degenerate into using th(j 

 simple methods that are characteristic of savage 

 tribes . . . the existence of these flint weapons, in 

 outlying districts, may not be pressed so far as t 

 prove a date as being long before more advance^ 

 civilisation in the great centres of population." 



1 



That is to say. Palaeolithic implements are the tools 

 of degenerate offshoots from the highly civilised prei 



