ener emcee ere 
412 REVIEWS. 
vertical. In the subalpine region, viz. 500 to 1500 feet of ele- 
vation, the number of species found is twenty; sixteen imhabit 
the lower alpine region, though not exclusively, as we have seen ; 
and six appear to be confined to the upper alpine region. The 
Pulmonarea group is the most numerous in species, and has the 
greatest vertical range: four of them inhabit the lower region, 
ete., ten the subalpine, etc., fifteen the lower alpine, etc., and 
six the upper alpine region exclusively. [We are not able to 
make the Summary and the Table agree ; for example, nine species 
inhabit the lowland region, ete., and we find only eight named in 
the table. Is H. cerinthoides to be added because found on the 
‘Links of Aberdeen ?] 
Eight of these species have not hitherto been described by 
Continental botanists; or if any of them have been so described, ~ 
their description has been drawn up from British specimens. 
Hence it may be inferred that a portion at least of these species 
is solely British. Their distribution, in relation to soil or loca- 
lity, is as follows :—Teesdale, on the basalt and mountain lime- 
stone, produces 13 species ; Clova, on mica-slate and micaceous 
quartz, etc., produces 23 species; and Braemar, on granite, mica, 
etc., about as many species as Clova. 
From a comparison of the number of English examples of 
Hieracium,—the produce of Teesdale, 13 species, is a sample,— 
and the numbers found in Scotland, viz. in Clova and Braemar, 
23 species respectively, it may be inferred that the maximum 
number of species belong rather to the Scottish than to the 
English type of distribution. Probably..Norway is the head- 
quarters of the genus. Will some kind correspondent of the 
‘Phytologist’ undertake to do for the Hieracia of the south of 
England, and especially for the Kent, Surrey, Sussex, and 
Hants species, what Mr. Baker has so ably done and is doing 
for the Teesdale species of this genus ? 
The Natural History Review, published quarterly. Nos. IX. 
and X., January and April, 1856. 
This publication, judging from the two numbers sent to us, is 
rather a review of Zoological works, and a history of the progress 
of this science, than a review of publications on Natural History. 
