292 Scientific Intelligence. 
and Poplars of their districts, — pains to procure blossoms, foliage, 
and fruit from the same trees. And for DeCandolle himself, who will 
probably undertake the Cupudifere, we likewise ask for good and copious 
specimens of every species or form of our American Oaks. Specimens 
communicated to the writer of this article will be duly ore and 
will doubtless a very useful. Such arrangements are made as to render 
it probable that the Dicotyledonee may be completed in the Prodan 
in the course of three or four years. 
2. Dr. Hooker’s Flora of Tasmania has been issued as far as t Pat 
V, which completes the first volume, and the Dicotyledonous class, Conif- 
ere included: 359 pages, ate 100 admirable plates, The work is: pub- 
6, 1857 ate Tho canis interesting paper upon ‘the ins be and g % 
nation of Barringionia and Careya is concluded. The embryo 3s chown 
to be’ exalbuminous, wesapiny a se jt mt radicle, destitute of on 
edons, developing from one end a nearly naked plumule, and from 
other a primordial slender sare -. Drs. Bitlon _ Thompson an 
secon t 
up a 
Hydrangea, &c.), Crassulacee, Droseracee, Parnassice, te 
Hamamelidee, and Philadelphew. The very pir, relahonete of t 
group or alliance to Rosacee on the one hand a nay 
other is pointed out. The resemblance of Passau to ‘Sazif g 
indicated by Brown, is insisted on, and the abiaiig strengthened by ie 
, as in the jatter 
a and the exalbuminous seeds. But he omits ‘aboot 
the. seca al osition of the stigmas, which is decidedly anti-saXx oe i 
as also is the division of the. styles or stigmas in Droseracee. (Th : ion 
an oversight or misprint on p. 78, in speaking of the par rietal placen ye 
of Elodea.) The transference of Droseracee to the Saxifragal alliane 
suite to Parnassie, is surely a happy thought, pie eg 
t 
we ur statement that “Droseracee and ed sign 
seem to be rather aberrant members of Sazifragee in its exteD 
ficance, than separate orders.” But, if there be here mu 
in admitting variations” of the order, there is on the other hand, as its zs 
to us, “too much stiffness in refusing” to admit the Philadelpio whi 
a8 our authors limit the groups, are distinguishable from Saxifragu’ 
. Pe 
