102 
> 
least, it is not unreasonable to suppose that these small 
birds must have availed themselves, to a great extent, of 
the rigging of passing vessels, or have been brought to 
this country in cages, from which they have been allowed, 
accidentally or designedly, to escape.” 
As regards the nomenclature and arrangement of the 
birds contained in his lists, Mr. Harting has not, we think, 
been quite so successful as in his accounts of their range 
and of their occurrences in the British Islands, The 
American Cuckoos are certainly not referable to typical 
Cuculus, and ought to stand as Coccyzi. LEvrithacus (not 
Erythaca) is the correct spelling for the generic name of 
the Red-breast, as any Latin dictionary will show. Th= 
Hirundinidz are typical Passeres,and should not be placed 
between the Bee-eaters and Swifts, as Mr. Harting pro- 
poses (p. 35). The Ibises should not be referred to 
the family “Tantalide.” Tantalus is nothing more or 
less than a form of Stork, and should be placed under 
the Ciconiide ; whilst the Spoonbills (arranged by Mr. 
Harting as an independent family, really appertain to the 
group of Ibises (Ibididae), The interposition of the Cranes 
between the Storks and Herons is most unnatural. 
There can be no question that the nearest relatives of the 
Grues are the Bustards and Rails. What can be the ob- 
ject of inventing such a family as the Petrocinclide (p. 
99)? The Spine-tailed Swift is by no means a Cyfselus, 
as Mr. Harting calls it (p. 127), but belongs to a dif- 
ferent sub-division of the Cypselidz, distinguished by the 
structure of its feet. Lastly, when such excellent genera 
as Coccyzus and Chetura are rejected, it is going a little 
too far to follow Coues and Bonaparte in adopting such 
a mere section of Procellaria as 4 strelata, 
It would not be difficult to extend our criticisms in this 
direction, but it is only fair to say that such minor defects 
will not seriously interfere with the great usefulness of Mr. 
Harting’s “ Handbook of British Birds.” 
OUR BOOK SHELF 
The Clematis as a Garden-Flower. By Thomas Moore, 
F.L.S., and George Jackman, F.R.H.S. (London: 
Murray.) 
A NOTICE of a book of this kind may at first sight seem 
out of place in a scientific periodical. Those stray threads, 
however, of biological investigation which have at various 
times attracted curiosity rather than study, and have, at 
‘any rate, been for the first time methodised in Dar- 
win’s “ Animals and Plants under Domestication,” will 
depend upon works of this kind for their further develop- 
ment. It is hardly generally understood that the produc- 
tion of what are called in popular language, “‘ Florists’ 
flowers” rests on two perfectly different principles and 
methods of procedure. The one is obvious enough; it 
may be calied an accelerated natural selection, consisting 
as it does of merely growing on a very large scale the 
plant which it is desired to improve, and then selecting 
repeatedly from the sports which are sure to occur those 
which conform most nearly to some preconceived standard. 
But the other and far less thoroughly understood method 
consists in destroying the fixity of ancestral type by per- 
sistent and involved hybridising. At first the hybrids are, 
as might be expected, intermediate between their parents ; 
after a time, however, the seedlings from crosses exhibit 
variations of habit and characters which could not possibly 
be expected, and which, consequently, make the business 
of raising new horticultural varieties almost as speculative 
‘as a lottery. Florists’ flowers are, consequently, the ex- 
NATURE 
~S 
25 
7 
“[Dec. 12, 187 
pression of the action of laws of which we at present know 
next to nothing, but the investigation of which is of the 
highest interest. The only possible way of pursuing it 
is obviously the careful comparison of a hybrid offspring 
with its various progenitors, somewhere amongst which 
the latent characters must lurk concealed which reveal 
themselves often so unexpectedly. A book of this kind is 
naturally, therefore, turned to in the expectation of its 
supplying facts of the kind required. A difficulty, how- 
ever, diminishes, as in other cases, its value in this respect. 
Horticulturists, as a body, are far from unsympathetic 
towards scientific inquiry ; but business operations cannot 
always be carried on in a scientific spirit. When crosses 
are made for the purpose of producing new forms, it is 
generally done on a large scale, and quite promiscuously, © 
merely avoiding what practical tact points out as unde- 
sirable strains. No record is kept, and the seeds are often 
sown in a single batch ; consequently, if a striking variety 
makes its appearance, it is often all but impossible, as for 
trade purposes it is not necessary, to assign to it its proper 
ancestry. Take, for example, a garden Clematis, named 
after its producer, C. Fackmannz (botanically, by the way, 
a hardly legitimate appellation). All that can be certainly 
said of it is that, amongst others, C. Viticed/a and C. lanu- 
ginosa hold a prominent place in its ancestry. The first 
is a European species producing an abundance of mode- 
rate-sized, rather dark-coloured flowers. The latter is a 
native of Japan, producing large pale-coloured flowers 
rather sparingly ; it is the parent, more or less remote, 
of most of the garden hybrids raised within the past ten 
years, It is from these sources, therefore, with proba- 
bility, that C. ¥ackmanni derives its good qualities. In 
another hybrid, where, it having been raised by an ama-_ 
teur horticulturist, the history is known, the relation of ~ 
the qualities of parents and offspring is all but inexpli- 
cable. 
already alluded to, which bears pale lilac flowers as much 
as eight inches across, with C. Fortunez, also of Japanese 
origin, with white flowers rather smaller and of a different 
character. He obtained, amongst other forms, C. Law- 
soniana, which possesses flowers as much as wine and ahalf 
inches across, and of a vosy purple; yet it could not pos- 
sibly owe either its size or colour to its immediate parents, 
That questions of this kind should be dealt with in what 
is after all a purely horticultural work, is a striking proof 
of how little reason there really is to despair about the 
general interest excited by scientific work. The whole of 
horticulture is, in a sense, a vast field of biological research, 
with results all ready to hand, It is due entirely to Mr. 
Darwin that the attempt has been made to gather them 
in. Perhaps the authors will hardly care, at least at 
present, to have their book stigmatised as too scientific. 
It contains all that can be desiderated of the pure garden- 
ing of its subject, and is capitally illustrated with plain 
and coloured illustrations, TO ne 
Synopses of Subjects taught in the Geological Class, a 
College of Physical Science, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Uni- 
versity of Durham. By David Page, LL.D., F.G,S, 
(Edinburgh and London: Messrs. Blackwood.) 
THESE Synopses are most comprehensive, and will, we 
are sure, be of some value to students and science- 
teachers. They embrace the subjects taught in the junior 
and senior divisions of Dr. Page’s class. In the former 
division the subjects follow each other thus :—Physical 
Geology, Elements of Biology, Physical Geology and 
Lithology, and Descriptive and Historical Geology. 
Under the heading of “Senior Division,” we find Phy- 
sical Geology and Mineralogy, Mineralogy, Descriptive 
Geology and Palzontology, Paleontology, and Economic 
Geology. The Synopses are characterised by the same 
clearness and precision for which Dr. Page’s text-books 
are so justly noted. On glancing over the pages, we were 
surprised tofind in the “Tabular Synopsis of European For- 
2, 1872 
Mr. Anderson Henry crossed C. lanuginosa — 
