BibliograpMcal Notice. 243 



from the pen of Mr. Crotch. This is extremely valuable, from its 

 affording accurate data for comparison with the more elaborate works 

 uf Mr. Wollaston on the Coleopteran Faunas of Madeira, the Canaries, 

 and Cape Verdes. 



A short survey of the Land Mollusks, by the Eev. H. B. Tristram, 

 enumerates (■with a few others) all Morelet and Drouet's species — 

 confirming some of the latter by examples found by Mr. Godman, 

 but leaving a majority, and indeed all the Limacidce and Vitrince, in 

 the same apocryphal category in which they stand as exhibited in 

 M. Morelet's book. The apparent absence of any member of the 

 Pulmonibranchiate group is a remarkable fact — if a fact. Their 

 extreme rarity seems at least established — a fact which, considering 

 the favourable conditions pointed out for their occurrence by Mr. 

 Tristram, is scarcely less curious than their supposed entire absence. 



In Mr. Hewett Watson's elaborate and valuable history, catalogue, 

 and general survey of the Flowering Plants and Ferns, we do not 

 fail to find the usual characteristics of their well-known aiithor, 

 viz. a most careful accuracy, not to say nicety, in all luinuto 

 points of detail, in the case especially of plants of doubtful or 

 subordinate specific rank, combined with a clear and logical pre- 

 cision in adjusting the balance fairly between the weight of facts or 

 evidence for or against his final, particular and general conclusions. 

 He reviews seriatim each one of the species originally discovered by 

 himscK or subsequently by others, showing, in veiy many instances, 

 the extreme looseness and incorrectness of Drouet's Catalogue, and 

 amending critically that of Seubort, with reference especially to 

 habitats. Thus, this new Catalogue is indeed, as intended by its 

 author (p. 124), " a key or index to all the carKer-dated floral lists 

 for the Isles," and " a more true list of the presently (sic) known 

 species, approximately complete and correct for the time being, 

 although doubtless further additions and corrections wiU be made in 

 the futui'e." 



With Drouet's List especially in view, and indeed the works of 

 others here and there, we cannot but largely participate in Mr. Wat- 

 son's amusingly strong and repeated expressions of distaste for " little 

 distinctions" (p. 172), "petty and inconstant technical distinctions" 

 (p. 123). This is a mere question, however, where to draw the 

 line ; and each man draws it, of course, below himself. Nor does 

 Mr. Watson really, we believe, go so far on this point as his words 

 in some places by themselves imply. For not only does he except 

 expressly from his censure, as " a bias towards the safer side " 

 (p. 123), or as "useful in local describers " (p. 172), such distinct 

 treatment of ambiguous varieties or species, but he directly blames 

 (p. 259) the late Sir W. J. Hooker for a tendency with Milde in 

 pteridology " to an excessive aggregation of species, which," he 

 justly adds, " so much loAvers the scientific value and serviceableness 

 of 8ir William Hooker's works on the same group of plants." And 

 to bring the matter still more closely home, we may refer to Mr. 

 Watson's treatment (p. 211) of his own adopted bantling, as it may 

 be called, Lijsunachia itzorica, Ilochst. — a treatment, however, in 



17* 



