1892. ] - Current Literature. 333 
and the diversity of their representatives has been produced by physi- 
calinfluences. The affinities, therefore, or the relation of their mod- 
ification or derived forms can not be looked for in the vegetation of 
distant countries.” 
the work is left by the author, although unfinished, it commends 
itself, and the author’s name will always be remembered with admira- 
tion and gratitude. But we are unable to leave his work without a few 
remarks about the manner in which it has been edited. 
In looking through this book, we are surprised at the number of 
errors, apparently of carelessness, such as mis-spelling, incorrect cita- 
tions, omission of figures, misleading terms, ete. The editor seems 
not to have understood the responsibility of editing a posthumous 
work. The best method of editing a posthumous work is, undoubted- 
to us, and pleasing for the time to the fancy, which should be omitted 
in print. We dare say, that in its present form, this work would never 
have been published by the author. The reader will readily observe 
the wide gap between the genial and elegant work of Lesquereux, and 
the lack of care and taste in the present edition. 
Although it is as unpleasant a task to criticise a posthumous work as 
been an easy matter to arrange them in good order Several of the 
figures are designated by numbers so distant from the respective ne 
ong. 
Sea The spelling of names is inconsistent in a great many 1n- 
; nal we have both grossé- and grosse-dentatum, 
vides, besides numerous others. Often the specific 
Wrong gender as Fagus orbiculatum, Sassafras primigined, AN sith 
' Pfafiana, The descriptive part contains some isleading 
ts of hairs 
