382 Bibliographical Notices. 



of no other method which cau really secure science from the rashness 

 or vanity of species-mongers, and at the same time ensiire its sound 

 and permanent progress. "At the beginning of onr studies," says 

 Fries, " we are always hoping to circumscribe nature with absolute 

 characters and limits, as if our hands held her in their grjisp ; but 

 when we gain experience, we come to see the emptiness of our hopes 

 and the futility of our efforts. For nature lives in integrity : and 

 when we cannot take her in under this her true character, we tear her 

 in pieces to adapt her to our own perceptions, and then patch her up 

 again in any way we can." But to return to our Authors : they vir- 

 tually assume that no species are distinct, until they are proved so, 

 and carry out this principle so far as it is possible : the old orthodox 

 species afford the principal limits to its extension. Hence those 

 plants whicii have been lately considered to have a reasonable claim 

 to separation are mostly retained as mere varieties ; and unluckily the 

 Authors' contempt for characters drawn from the reproductive organs 

 causes them to pass over in silence the very points on which most 

 stress should belaid. They are also too fond of getting rid of trouble- 

 some plants by calling them hybrids ; and this theory is brought to 

 bear so heavily upon the Rubi, that only one true species is allowed 

 between R. idceus and saxaf His: but we are glad to see that Wimmer's 

 recent apjdication of it to the Salices has not been followed. Some 

 examples must in justice be given to substantiate these assertions. 



The var. /3. of Thalictriim minus with "segments of the leaflets much 

 acuminated" is called 1\ nutans (Desf.), to which Grenier, who has 

 seen authentic specimens, ascribes "folioleslarges." Ranunculus cir- 

 cinatus the Authors " cannot believe to be distinct from" R. aquatilis, 

 because the latter must be abnormal, when its leaf-segments are not 

 in one plane : what of Carum verticillatum and scores of others ? 

 Nothing is s.aid of the styles, stigmas, or habit of ^. t)'ipartiius,vfhich. 

 is suspected. R. ccenosus is said to vary in the position of the style ; 

 but as it was apparently not seen alive, the opinion is worth next to 

 nothing : it is reluctantly separated from R. hederaceus. Thlaspi 

 virens (Jord.) is not even noticed. Helianthemum Breioeri (Planch.) 

 is merged in //. guttatum, without mention of the disposition or shape 

 of the leaves : H. polifolium (Pers.) is called " probably a mere 

 variety of H. indgare^' ! The Violce are given chiefly according to 

 Mr. H. C. Watson's characters . the true V. canina, of which Smith's 

 F. ^a«;?eorm« is a dwarf form, is called V.pumila (Vill.) : butVillars' 

 plant is really quite different, having rather the leaves of V. stagnina 

 (Kit.), and remarkably large conspicuous stipules which are inciso-den- 

 tate, not laciniated : it is also stoloniferous according to Fries, who 

 places it in a different section : perhaps the name canina should be 

 dropped altogether : V. sylvatica has certainly an inferior claim to it ; 

 and the mere fact of its being taken from Gerard proves little. We 

 cannot understand the additional note on Mr. Babington's recent 

 paper ; " the V. lactea"" (Sm.) is there opposed to " what we (Hooker 

 and Arnott) and most others caMV. lactea ■,^^ whereas in the text 

 Smith's name is given to their ^plant : the anther-spurs, which are 



