Bibliographical Notice. 57 
brought into comparison with the Flowering Plants. Then may be 
offered a sounder basis for explaining some of the phenomena of 
geographical distribution, which in our times are so full of promise, 
but whose existence has hitherto rather been made evident than 
satisfactorily accounted for. 
The ‘Cybele Britannica’ is an “‘ opus per se,” as it is a model for 
future operations. We English botanists may well claim that our 
Flowering Plants have been better and more systematically explored 
than those of any other country. It is true that M. Lecoq has given, 
in ten royal octavo volumes, an account of the features of the flora 
of a portion of France, including an outline of the general “area” of 
each species ; but we do not fear a comparison between his book and 
the English ‘Cybele.’ To say nothing of its lengthy disquisitions, 
and too often fanciful theories, there is, in the French work, great 
want of convenient tabular summaries. The plants of his own di- 
strict are not nearly so thoroughly investigated by M. Lecogq, in his 
‘Etudes ;’ besides, the very size and expense of the volumes places 
them beyond the reach of most readers. Indeed, we do not feel at 
all sure that the comparison with Mr. Watson’s work is fair to either 
writer, since M. Lecoq avowedly addresses himself chiefly to the 
general question, while Mr. Watson equally professes to give his 
attention rather to local and particular details. 
When treating of his species, M. Lecogq first discusses the aspect 
and distribution of the order, then the statistics, range, &c., of the 
genus—very interesting points, it is true, but somewhat out of place 
in a local treatise. Then follows a kind of biography of each plant, 
extending often over two pages, separate paragraphs being besides 
devoted to—1. nature of soil; 2. altitude (often only approximately 
given) ; 3. a statement of the entire or general range. Here the ver 
want of that precision which is so valuable a feature of the ‘Cybele’ 
is, in our eyes, the fault of the French author. 
But we cannot help regretting that no place has been allotted by 
Mr. Watson for a few words respecting the Aind of soil * most favour- 
able to each species—whether silicious, calcareous, argillaceous or 
ty, friable or compact ; for this is a point always of high interest 
to the local observer, and one to which M. Jules Thurmann has re- 
cently devoted two volumes ; Mr. J. G. Baker, too, has given a conve- 
nient abstract, in the shape of a pamphlet, where the English plants 
are arranged somewhat after the manner of M. Thurmann. We 
must, however, confess that we feel some misgiving as to the adop- 
tion of so difficult a terminology as that of the Swiss author. If 
the harsh terms of ‘‘ Dysgeogenous”’ and ‘‘ Eugeogenous”’ be fairly 
represented by “compact” and “friable,” we might hope to find 
* Something, indeed, is to be gathered from the terms “ glareal,”’ “ ericetal,” 
“rupestral,” &c.; and, in most cases, mention is made of the attachment of a 
species to a calcareous substratum, which often greatly influences the assigning 
of plants to the “Germanic” or South-eastern group, because it is on the east 
side of England that the Chalk principally occurs. But the desideratum above 
mentioned consists in the absence of a line regularly devoted to a statement of 
the soil preferred by each species. 
