March 2, 1871 | 

NATURE 349 
re) 

] 
the same character made of late years, including several | 
important ones from members of the society, it seemed 
evident that observation of this planet was not so difficult 
as is generally represented. It was seen further that if a 
proper discussion and analysis of all recorded observa- 
tions were made, the result might be a large addition to 
our knowledge of the planet’s surface. 
The Committee, therefore, in inaugurating this im- 
portant movement, divide the work to be done into three 
branches :— 
1. The formation of a sub-committee of astronomical 
observers (including non-members of the society) for the 
purpose of continually observing Venus during one com- 
plete synodical revolution. 
2. The collection of all ancient observations and draw- 
ings of the planet. 
3. The collection of as much modern data as possible 
from existing observations, and from public and private 
records. 
At the conclusion of the observations of the sub-com- 
mittee, the results obtained, together with the ancient and 
modern observations collected, will be placed in the hands 
of a competent astronomer for complete analysis and dis- 
cussion, when the results obtained will be published. 
Those observers who are willing to join the “ Venus 
Observation Sub-Committee ” are requested te send their 
names and addresses to the hon. secretary of the Society, 
Ashley Road, Bristol, before March Io, stating the aper- 
ture and power of the instrument they intend to employ. 
The observations will commence on March 20, previous 
to which a circular, containing full instructions, will be 
issued to every observer who has expressed his willingness 
to assist in the project. 

PROFESSOR DE NOTARIS AND HIS NEW 
WORK ON MOSSES 
ey the year 1838 Professor De Notaris, of the Univer- 
sities of Turin and Genoa, published a Syllabus 
Muscorum, which he now calls Uz lavoro giovanile (a 
juvenile work). Still it is a very useful manual for the 
young Italian bryologist, for whom it was first written, 
and to whom it gives not only the exact characters of each 
plant, but also their localities and the synonymy. From 
that time, year after year, he went on increasing and im- 
proving his work, till he had gathered together sufficient 
materials for a new work. It was not, however, till last 
year that he succeeded in persuading the bountiful muni- 
cipality of Genoa to take his MS. in hand and publish it, 
which they effectually did at their own cost some 
months ago. The simple title of De Notaris’ work* was 
mentioned by one English scientific periodical ; but, except 
Dr. Braithwaite, the well-known contributor of the “ Re- 
cent Additions to our Moss Flora,” and Mr. C. J. Smith, 
who recently published a “ Moss Flora of Sussex,” accom- 
panied by a clear and really instructive paper on the 
structure and reproduction of mosses,t I have hardly 
heard of any other English bryologist taking account of 
the newly edited Az¢ti della Université di Genoa, the 
first of which, in large quarto, is entirely taken up by 
Professor De Notaris’ standard work. 
This painstaking and well-digested composition repre- 
sents, as it were, the 7éswmdé, or, we might say, the quint- 
essence of the long and seldom interrupted labours of the 
veteran bryologist, who, far from rejecting or disregarding 
the improvements that bryology has recently made, is 
quite willing to adopt them wherever he finds them of 
practical value, but not when, instead of the promised 
gold, they only give glittering or useless tinsel. 
* “Epilogo della Briologia Italiana.” 
t ‘‘Thave seen,” writes Mr. Smith, ‘‘ your friend’s Zf7/ogo, and am much 
struck with it. What a fine work, and brought out at the cost of the 
Municipality |! When will such things occur in England ?” 

“T really find myself”—thus he writes in his preliminary 
comments—“in a sort of quandary (sfecie di peritanza) 
whenever I have to produce any ulterior, though obvious, 
re-adjustment, which might probably be attributed to 
some deplorable mania of upsetting and overthrowing the 
monumental edifice of the European bryology, or even to 
an ungracious instinct (farmadoso tstinto) of seizing upon 
and appropriating the works of others. For, after all, we 
must acknowledge that the Bryologia Europea (of 
Schimpfer) is the bible of every student of mosses.” 
Whilst admitting that any very small and apparently 
insignificant character may at times be useful to establish 
a natural group, De Notaris believes that such differential 
characters occasionally assumed, to complete the diagnosis 
of some genus or species, cannot be taken as absolute and 
invariable, and therefore he prefers to stick to the old 
Linnean canon : Ove in uno genere ad genus stabiliendum 
valent, minime idem in alio genere prestant, 
Thus pointing out the different forms of cells in the 
epicarp of Bryum cespitosum and B. erythrocarpum, and 
seeing that it is not in the power of anyone to examine 
all the capsular membranes of each individual plant of 
these two species, he says : “‘ We must not wonder if now 
and then an exception to the ruling character of the 
cells is to be found,” observing, at the same time, that a 
pretty good character for distinguishing certain natural 
groups might also be found in the specific conditions of 
the exdochrome. Another striking remark on this subject 
he makes, where he says that “the epithet pachydermic, 
applied to the cellule of the epicarps, might easily be a 
source of error, owing to either a stronger or weaker 
cohesion of the chromoplasm, in which case the cellules 
might well be pachydermic, and flocculently membrana- 
ceous at the same time.” 
He further observes upon the variable characters of the 
inflorescence that “ (/nzwm medium is found both monce- 
cious and polygamous, as well as Bryuim torguens and 
Bryum pendulum. Catoscopium is not seldom to be found 
moncecious as well as dicecious, Even that form, he says, 
which I have distinguished under the name of Bryum 
bimoideum, may turn out at some time to be merely a 
dicecious form of B, bz.” 
The Zeristome, in his view, is but an exudation or, as it 
were, a hypertrophy in the evolution of the capsule, not 
an indispensable means for the ripening of the sporules. 
Hence the reason why he considers it, morphologically 
speaking, as an apparatus of secondary importance. 
Thus there are specimens of Aypuum stellatum, which 
bear their ordinary normal capsules, whilst there are 
others whose capsules are like those of the apothecia, with 
imperfect and nearly Leskeaseous peristoms. 
Other important reflections are to be found in the same 
“ Comments,” such as the one relating to the perichetial 
leaves, which serve to distinguish a Lzmnodium from 
a Hypnum better than any other distinction taken from 
the habit of the stem or the arrangement of the leaves ; 
and the other on the topographical distribution of mosses 
in Italy, where the great variegation of the “ Bryological 
mantle” mainly depends upon the various constitution, 
elevation, or undulation of the soil ; the heights and the 
valleys, naked, or well timbered and green with copse and 
grove, variously contributing to their infinitely varied 
diversifications. 
Among the vagrant species of all regions he points out 
particularly the Bryzn alpinum, which, “ from the upper- 
most boundaries of the Alpine zone, spreads itself down 
to the very brackish pastures that scarcely raise themselves 
above the sea level in the islets of the Strait of Bonifacio.” 
Again, that gemof mosses Schistostega osmundacea(Bridel’s 
Catoptridium smaragdinum) which has been till late a 
desideratum in the Italian flora, De Notaris informs us he 
found himself whilst, in 1865, he was crossing the Morgan 
on his way to Mont Rosa. 
J. GAGLIARDI 
