Nov. tt, 1869] 
NATURE 
49 
back the history of life on the globe over a period 
indefinitely anterior to that which so long marked its 
starting-point ; the second reveals a condition of life far 
lower than any hitherto discovered, if not the primordial 
condition of organized matter itself, and is the clue to the 
history of the chalk, the most complicated in its relations 
and the richest in animal remains of all known forma- 
tions; whilst the third, the most simple in its outlines 
and the most intelligible in its facts, has hitherto check- 
mated every attempt to reconcile the stubborn conclusions 
of astronomers, in so far as these relate to the recent 
history of the globe, with the palzontology of a period 
comparatively but little antecedent to our own in a 
geological point of view. 
Thus it is that Geology, which in its infancy was the 
offspring of mineralogy, chemistry, and mechanical laws, 
has fallen while still young under the step-fatherhood 
of Biology; even the superposition of strata meaning 
nothing, if not supported by Palaeontology, since the fact 
that an upper stratum of rock containing organic beings 
of simpler structure than that it overlies is held to be suff- 
cient proof of their original positions having been reversed, 
notwithstanding all appearance to the contrary. Biology, 
in short, supplies the weights, wheels, and pendulum of 
the geological clock, of which Zoology has hitherto 
marked the hours, and Botany, at uncertain intervals, 
the minutes. 
Lately, however, owing chiefly to the exertions of 
Heer, Massolongo, and Saporta, following the footsteps'of 
Unger, Braun and Goeppert, Botany has gained a little 
of its lost ground in the race with Zoology for precedence 
as the handmaid of Geology. The number of species 
collected and arranged in the cabinets of Ziirich, Vienna, 
Breslau, &c., has been prodigious; lucky discoveries of 
structural specimens have thrown clear light on the 
affinities of whole groups of obscure fragments ; and the 
constant association of certain leaves with certain fruits, 
seeds, and flowers has Jed to many more very probably 
correct, or at least approximate, identifications. As 
usually obtains with a science under such conditions, the 
publication of new species on mistaken and uncertain 
grounds, or on no grounds at all, has proceeded rapidly, 
whilst the acquisition of a real knowledge of the objects 
themselves has been slow. Superficial naturalists, who 
think they know an oak, a laurel, or a fig-leaf when they 
see it, but who neither really do know these, nor the 
multitude of other vegetables whose leaves imitate them, 
have boldly made fossil species of such genera ; shielding 
themselves under the belief that, let botanists doubt as 
they please, they cannot contradict. 
For years this state of things has gone on; the 
Devonian, Carboniferous, Eocene, Miocene, and Pliocene 
floras have been the prey of adventurous systematists ; 
while with the exceptions of Brongniart and Lindley no 
naturalist eminent for his knowledge of exotic forms of 
vegetation has attempted a general work on fossil plants; 
and that these great men simultaneously broke down, is 
notorious. Thirty-two years have elapsed since the sus- 
pension of the “ Fossil Flora of Great Britain” by Lindley 
and Hutton, and of the “ Histoire des Vegetaux Fossiles,” 
by Brongniart. In this interval, but one other general work 
of the same nature has appeared, the “ Genera et Species 
Plantarum fossilum,” by Unger, a careful compilation by 
a very accomplished palzontologist of Vienna; but many 
excellent treatises on the vegetation of individual forma- 
tions have been contributed by able men, amongst whom 
rank especially—on the Continent, Heer, Unger, Ettings- 
hausen, Massolongo, de Gaudin, de Sismonda, Otto 
Weber, de Ludwig, Goeppert, Saporta, and de Watelet, 
and the author of the work now under notice,—in 
England, Bunbury, Binney, Williamson, and Carruthers, 
—and in America, Lesquereux, Dawson, and Hall. The 
time, therefore, has fully come for a complete review of the 
Fossil Flora of the globe, and it has fortunately fallen into 
hands which in very many respects are the best fitted for 
carrying it out with success. 
Dr. W. Ph. Schimper is Professor of Geology in the 
Faculty of Science at Strasbourg, and Director of the 
Museum of Natural History in that city, an institution 
which is, we are told, largely, if not wholly, indebted to his 
liberality and energy for its present value and condition. 
Dr. Schimper is further a correspondent of the Institute 
of France, and of the Linnzean Society of London; the 
best living Muscologist, and the author of a monograph 
of the Fossil Plants of the Vosges, and of a work on the 
Palzontology of Alsace. In furtherance of his object, 
which is not a mere compilation, but an original work, 
in which each order, genus, and species is to be con- 
sidered in its totality as well as in its details, and to be 
treated of in a large and general manner, he has visited 
the principal museums of the Continent, and twice or 
oftener those of England, making a lengthened sojourn 
on each occasion. 
It remains to add a sketch of the general arrangement 
of the work, which is lucid and practical. The whole will 
be comprised in two thick octavo volumes, accompanied 
by 100 lithographic plates in quarto. Of these the first 
volume, of 738 pages, and 50 plates, is on sale, at the 
extremely moderate price of 50 francs, and appears to be 
exceedingly well done. The commentaries on many of 
the involved and obscure, though prevalent orders, as 
Equisetz, are in particular well worthy of an attentive 
study; and as a specimen of the condition of the science 
as Dr. Schimper finds and leaves it, and of the extreme 
difficulty of the subject, we give an analysis of the con- 
tents of one tribe of this order; namely, the Calamitez. 
Of these he retains the nine following genera :— 
1. Calamites, with seven supposed good species, under 
which species of three other genera are brought, with 
twenty-six synonyms, of which fourteen belong to one 
species alone; and there are, besides, nine doubtful 
species of the genus. 
2. Calamocladus, with five species, under which are 
brought plants previously referred to no fewer than zn 
other genera (two species having respectively seven and 
eight synonyms). 
3. Calamostachys, with five species, some of which have 
been referred to three other genera, 
4. Huttonia, a monotypic genus. 
5. Macrostachya, with one species, rejoicing in seven 
synonyms, of which four are generic. 
6. Bornia, with three species, of which one has six 
synonyms. 
7. Sphenophyllum, with seven species, having thirty- 
two synonyms amongst them, besides three doubtful 
species. 
