CURKENT. LITERATURE: 
BOOK REVIEWS. 
Missouri Botanical Garden.* 
THE ANNUAL REPORTS from this garden have come to be regarded as among 
the most important contributions to American botany, and the one before us 
is worthy of its predecessors. The three scientific papers are as follows: 
1. Juglandacee of the United States, by WILLIAM TRELEASE. Since 189 
Dr. Trelease has been preparing a synoptical revision of this group, its publica- 
tion being delayed from time to time on account of the necessity of additional 
material. Now that the family has appeared in Sargent’s “Silva,” Dr. Tre- 
lease has thought best not to publish the entire manuscript, and has presented 
in the paper before us “merely such a tabulation of the fruit, twig, bark and 
bud characters as it is thought will be helpful in field studies.” It is certain 
that these so-called “ winter characters” will be extremely useful, but we wish 
that Dr. Trelease had given us the benefit of his complete revision. It seems 
that most of the species are more readily recognized in their winter condition 
than during the period of flowering or the early summer season. The revision 
Contains our ten hickories and four walnuts, with notes on certain hybrid 
forms, which are very helpful in explaining certain puzzling forms, which 
have long troubled botanists. The twenty-five excellent plates, many of them 
from remarkabl y clear photog phs, thoroughly illustrate habit, bark, buds, etc., 
and there would seem to be little excuse left for not recognizing our species. 
2. A Study of the Agaves of the United States, by A. ISABEL MULFORD. 
The exceptional facilities at the Missouri Botanical Garden for the study of 
this interesting and difficult genus are well known, and Miss Mulford seems 
to have availed herself of them fully. The paper is a clear and full presen- 
tation of her results, which the thirty-eight plates make still more valu- 
able. A general account of the genus and of its economic uses, which are 
ee nerous, prefaces the synoptical presentation of the species. The subgeneric 
divisions based upon differences in the inflorescence, recognized by Dr. Engel- 
mann, are followed, but Baker’s substantive names, Manfreda, Littea and 
Euagave, are applied to them. The specific limitations are not distinct, as is 
to be expected in such a group, and absolute precision in definition is not to 
be looked for. About twenty species and varieties are presented, three of 
which are Proposed as new. 
“Missouri Botanical Garden. Seventh annual report. 8vo. pp. 210, pl. 67. St. 
Louis, Mo. 1896. 
1896] 50 
