148 Bibliography. 
part of the plants.illustrated by M. Moricand are from tropical America ; 
but there are several from Texas, selected from Balandier’s collections, 
viz., tab. 2, Trifolium Bejariense, Moric., which is the T’, macrocalyx of 
Hooker’s Icones, t- The former name must take precedence, as it 
was published several years earlier than the other. Tab. 25, Sida fili- 
formis (from Tampico) seems to be very nearly the same as 8. filicaulis, 
Torr. and Gr., but it has not a hisped stem. Tab. 26, Platanus Mexica- 
nus, from Mexico, needs to be compared with the California species. 
Tab. 44, Dalea agastachys, Moric., is Petalostemon obovatum, J'orr. and 
. Tab. 45, Dalea penicillata, Moric., is D. laxiflora, Pursh. Tab. 
69, Berberis trifoliolata, Moric., is a species which was gathered by 
Drummond without flowers or fruit, and is mentioned in the Flora of North 
America, p. 662. . Gr. 
18. Lepesour, Flora Rossica, fasc. 7; (Stuttgard, 1846.)—This fas- 
ciculus completes the second volume of the work. It contains the re- 
mainder of the Composite, and the Lobeliacee, Campanulacee, Vacci- 
nieg@, and Ericacee. A. Gr. 
19. Symbole Caricologice of Derser.*—It has been the great effort 
of the author in his work on Carices, to exhibit the affinities or natural 
relations of the various species of the genus he has so faithfully studied. 
hile the result evinces great care and extended examination and com- 
European writers on this subject. It is due to some American authors at 
least to state, that he has given an erroneous view of their arrangement 
of the American species. For the sake of more ready access to he spe- 
the outline of their arrangement, and associated those ies which near- 
ly resembled each other according to these artificial characters ¢ 
was the plan adopted by myself. us C. Shorti w., upon which 
mosa, Dew., C. gracillima, Schw., and C: virescens, ub., because the 
his family, he, or the black-flowered, a distinction not wholly re- 
moved from the artificial. The reader of the Symbole Caricologice, 
will carry this explanation to the remarks on the affinities of C. glauces- 
cens, Ell., C. stenolepis, Torr., and C. Cherokeensis, Schw., and be satis- 
fied how utterly the distinguished Drejer has misapprehended those Amer- 
ican writers on Carices. In the opinion of Drejer, C. undulata, Kzc., is 
not a distinct species, and is unnecessarily separated from C. pailescens, 
L., in which he will be approved by some American botanists. He also 
* See this Journal, last volume, page 302. 
