Bibliographical Notice, 157 



Plate 153 {Lepidium latifolium) is a bad copy of the original plate, 

 which is not itself good. But, as we have said, on the whole the 

 plates are satisfactory. 



Let us now turn to the text. Mr. Syme furnishes a description 

 of each genus and species, and has performed his task thus far in a 

 very creditable manner. We do not like his mode of arranging the 

 plants as species and subspecies, neither can we see the use of it. It 

 also leads to a very inconvenient introduction of new names, and 

 especially to that of the prefix "eu," as Thalictrum eu-minus for the 

 true T. minus of botanists. The author's theory leads him to take 

 for granted that in this case the term T. minus " properly belongs 

 to the whole" of his "collective" species (and similarly in many 

 other cases), whereas it seems to us to be clearly the property of his 

 " subspecies T. eu-7mnus." He thinks that this nomenclature will 

 tend to prevent confusion ; and, indeed, such might be the case if 

 people could be persuaded universally to adopt his mixture of Greek 

 and Latin and his ideas of sub- and super-species exactly as he 

 holds them. But as this is exceedingly unlikely, we shall suffer 

 under the difficulty of not knowing to v/hat an author refers when 

 using such a term as T. minus, until we have discovered the class of 

 "splitters" or "lumpers" to which he himself belongs ; and those 

 who, fortunately or unfortunately, belong to neither of these classes 

 must necessarily run the risk of being placed in one of them, pro- 

 bably very much against their will. The author himself is just in 

 that position. We have known him stigmatized as an extreme 

 subdivider of species, and have seen the remark in print that 

 Mr. Syme " will soon exhaust the patience of both publisher and 

 buyers" by the plan adopted. We do not admit the justice of 

 this remark. It is highly desirable for all botanists to see what 

 is really intended by authors who extensively divide plants, whether 

 they agree v/ith their views or not ; and probably Mr. Syme might 

 have wisely introduced plates of some other recognized forms. On 

 the other hand, his adoption of this system has led others to class 

 him with the very men from one of whom the recently quoted 

 remark is derived. We believe that he is endeavouring to follow 

 Nature wherever she may lead him, without caring for the theories 

 of either extreme class ; and therefore amongst those botanists who 

 are unfortunately swayed (perhaps unknowingly) by party he has 

 no friends. He seems to be a "searcher after truth," such as would 

 have pleased the late Edward Forbes, who certainly did not belong 

 to either of those classes. We may not agree with Mr. Syme in 

 some of his views, but still think most highly of him as an honest, 

 learned, and painstaking botanist — ^just the man to edit 'English 

 Botany.' It would be well if he had a little more absolute power 

 over his coadjutors, and especially over the artist. 



Our remarks have extended to such a length that we must dismiss 

 the popular part of the book in a very few words. Mrs. Lankester's 

 remarks are clever and interesting ; but they are sometimes too long, 

 and not always absolutely correct. 



Although we have found it necessary to make a few adverse re- 



