380 REVIEWS. 



remark is here repeated tliat tlie greater part of the so-called 

 names of organs are only terms, that is, names indicative of 

 the condition of organs or parts of the plant. For some of 

 these substantive names are necessary or highly convenient, 

 yet most were better provided with adjective terms onlj^, 

 which belong to terminology, not to nomenclature. Doubtless 

 principles of fixity and the rule of priority should apply to 

 these, both to names and to terms. But it seems unlikely 

 that the phytotomists will at present heed the counsels of the 

 phytographers in this matter. Yet the latter may insist that 

 established names used in descriptive botany shall not be 

 displaced on the pretense of getting more appropriate ones. 

 For instance, the long recognized name " testa " for the outer 

 seed-coat is to be discarded, because, forsooth, this covering is 

 not always or even not generally a shell, or of the texture of 

 earthenware. As well ask the French to discard the word 

 "tete " (or "teste"), because the human head, or the skull 

 which gave the name, does not really resemble a brick or 

 earthen pot. 



The second is upon the nomenclature of fossils. And the 

 rule is that they are named according to laws which apply to 

 living plants. The Bologna congress of palaeontologists or- 

 dained that, to secure priority for specific names of fossils, 

 they should not only be described but figured. De Candolle, 

 after consultation with Heer (whose recent death we have to 

 deplore), concludes that this rule is too absolute. It seems 

 to us that so long as a large part of the names of fossil plants 

 are merely tentative and provisional, we should be content 

 with a general approximation to the received rules of botany. 



The nomenclature of groups inferior to species (varieties, 

 sub-varieties, variations and sub-variations) is considered ; but 

 no new rules are proposed ; nor is the question of sub-species 

 discussed. 



Although it is not exactly a matter of nomenclature, we 

 should have liked that our author had considered the two 

 modes of disposing of varieties, and had expressed an opinion 

 as to whether the character of the species should or should not 

 completely cover the variety or varieties assigned to it. In 



