214 Bibliographical Notices. 



We copy Dr. Horsfield's closing passage of his postscript : — 

 " I have the pleasing duty," he says, " to acknowledge the ability 

 and assiduity with which Mr. Bennett has performed the task he has 

 undertaken. The minuteness of detail and extent of research with 

 which he has elaborated the articles he has contributed, elucidate 

 clearly and satisfactorily the characters and habits of the subjects as 

 well as the history of their discovery, and the labours bestowed on 

 their investigation by preceding botanists. Mr. Brown has, agreeably 

 to his original intention, contributed his remarks on the affinity and 

 structure of the subjects described ; he has also afforded many valu- 

 able suggestions in the progress of the work, and the whole has 

 received his examination and revisal. I embrace with pleasure the 

 opportunity now afforded me of publicly expressing my great obliga- 

 tions to Mr. Brown. The examination and arrangement of my her- 

 barium, the laborious duties connected with the superintendence of 

 the figures contained in this work, the preparation of the illustrative 

 details, and the time devoted to the description of the subjects, are by 

 no means the only marks of friendship which I have received from 

 that distinguished botanist, who, ever since my arrival in England, 

 has afforded to me his advice and assistance in my researches con- 

 nected with natural history, and on many other important occasions." 



Of the plants contained in the concluding part, five in number, 

 nearly all are remarkable for such singularities of structure as to 

 render the determination of their affinities a task of considerable dif- 

 ficulty ; and the elaboration of the whole part is due to Mr. Brown. 

 The plant least removed from ordinary forms is Actinophora fra- 

 grans, a genus indicated in Dr. Wallich's list and there referred to 

 Buttneriacece ; with respect to which Mr. Brown observes, that " it 

 certainly does not belong to Buttneriacece as I originally defined it, 

 but this may equally be said of several genera included in that order, 

 and which, like Actinophora, are more obviously referable to Tili- 

 acece ; at the same time, as I observed in proposing the separation of 

 Biitt7ieriacece, these two families gradually pass into each other." 

 The more remarkable characters of Actinophora are its " enlarged 

 subfoliaceous spreading calyx, accompanying a crustaceous evalvular 

 monospermous pericarpium." 



The two succeeding articles are dedicated to a new species of Sai'- 

 costigma (S. Horsjieldii, R. Br.), and lodes ovalis of Blume ; two 

 genera referred by Mr. Brown to the natural family of Phytocrenete 

 of Arnott. He discusses the question of the value of their floral en- 

 velopes, and comes to the conclusion that they are properly to be 

 regarded as calyx and corolla. He notices also the views of different 

 authors as to their affinity, and gives a synopsis of the characters of 

 the family Phytocrenece and of the genera belonging to it, viz. 

 Phytocrene, Wall., Sarcostigma, Wight and Arn., lodes, Blume, 

 Nansiatum, Buch. Ham., and Mi^iie^m, Meisn. (including Jiew/<-m«««, 

 Griff.). As a genus " Phytocreneis affine," he enumerates also Py- 

 renacantha, Hook., properly united by M. Planchon with Adelanthus 

 of Endlicher. While removing Sarcostigma from HernandiacecB in 

 which Messrs. Wight and Arnott had placed it, Mr. Brown inci- 



