DE CANDOLLE'S PHYTOGRAPHY. 291 



genera. In liis sixth chapter, devoted to tliis topic, tlie author 

 cites, in order of date, the principal monographs of orders or 

 tribes (excluding those of a single genus) which may be taken 

 as models (about two dozen only), and points out some of 

 their merits or defects. The subject of abridged descriptions 

 is taken up in chapter VII. ; and this connects itself with a 

 great number of subsidiary questions and particular details, 

 running on through twenty chapters more (individually short), 

 and forming the most practically useful part of the book. 

 There are so many points which it were well to call attention 

 to, or sometimes to comment upon, for which space is now 

 wanting, that we must defer the remainder of this critical notice 

 to the next issue of the Journal. 



It is to be regretted that, for the completeness of this work, 

 the author did not comprehend in it the subject of nomen- 

 clature of groups — an important part of phytography — and 

 reprint in it his opuscula, entitled " Lois de la Nomenclature 

 Botanique," along with some further commentaries, such as 

 his experience and some adverse criticisms from an opposing 

 school may have suggested. This may still be desired, 

 although the little treatise has already been widely dissemi- 

 nated in three languages, and although, as the author inci- 

 dentally remarks, his own view is shared by an immense 

 majority of descriptive botanists. 



We proceed with our remarks upon this interesting volume, 

 taking up certain points as they strike attention in turning 

 the pages, but passing over many others of equal or superior 

 importance. 



There is a short chapter upon enigmatical descriptions or 

 botanical riddles, and how they come about. The author has 

 taken the pains to collect and tabulate the " species dubise " 

 of the last four volumes of the "Prodromus," to see who 

 is accountable for them, taking into account only botanical 

 authors no longer living, and excluding those who have con- 

 tributed no more than three. So good a botanist as Blume 

 heads the list, one so indifferent as Siebold is accountable for 

 the fewest ; so not much comes from such a tabulation. The 

 practical point is that Blume, as well as Miquel and Kunth, 



