VON MOHUS VEGETABLE CELL. 51 



it is rather cumbrous, if it is to be used in every brief 

 mention of the sj^ecies, and, in our opinion, quite superflu- 

 ous in a systematic treatise, where the synonymy is given in 

 proper historical order. The recommendation to make sub- 

 generic names agree in gender with that of the genus. Pro- 

 fessor Agassiz thinks is of no consequence, unless the new 

 annotation, just animadverted upon, should come into use. 

 Besides, it would often interfere with the rule of priority, 

 which requires synonyms, when they exist, to be adopted for 

 sectional names. But he strongly commends the rule, that 

 the etymology of names should always be stated by the pro- 

 poser. 



Justly does Mr. Agassiz condemn the practice of those who 

 change the authority of a genus when they extend or narrow 

 its bounds, or correct a faulty orthography. Thus he would 

 write Lepidosteus, Lacep., although Lacepede wrote Lepi- 

 sosteus ; and especially would he write Perca, Linn. (Cuv.), 

 not Perca, Cuv. 



Hearty and just, also, is his censure of the custom of those 

 French zoologists who use vernacular appellations in scien- 

 tific works, either to the exclusion of the systematic name, or 

 in precedence of it. 



Our author closes this part of his preface with some ex- 

 cellent reflections on the study of genera in the animal king- 

 dom, and the need of a thorough reinvestigation of the 

 grounds upon which natural families are constituted; re- 

 marks which we would gladly copy, if our limits allowed. 



VON MOHL'S VEGETABLE CELL. 



We desire in a special manner to commend this condensed 

 treatise ^ not only to botanists, but to animal physiologists, to 



^ Grundziige der Anatomie und Physiologie der vegetahilischen Zelle. 

 Hugo Von Mohl : Braunschweig, 1851. English translation {Principles 

 of the Anatomy and Physiology of the Vegetable Cell) by Arthur Henfrey, 

 London, 1852. (American Journal of Science and Arts, 2 ser., xv. 451.) 



