1897 ] CURRENT LITERATURE rai 
Haloragacee.’’ The form of the first family name is accounted for by the 
claim of the author that “Onothera,” not ‘‘(nothera,” is the proper form of 
the generic name, The task set was to discover whether anatomical charac- 
ters could be of diagnostic use, and if so, to define the families and genera 
accordingly. We are assured that the researches were ‘(crowned with suc- 
cess."" Some of the more interesting conclusions are as follows: the system 
of crystallization of the calcium oxalate is very constant, and permits the dis- 
tinct separation of the two families; the structure of the hairs is equal to the 
crystals in taxonomic value; Ludwigia, possessing the crystals and hairs of 
both families, is the transition genus (placed by the author in Onotheracez as 
a sub-family); the Haloragacez are derived from the Onotheracee ; Gayo- 
phytum and Clarkia are not simply sections of Onothera, and Jussiaea is not 
a section of Ludwigia; the section Schizocarya of Gaura is worthy of generic 
rank, and isso placed ; anatomical characters serve well to distinguish genera 
and even specific types of Haloragacez, but are not so definite in Onothera- 
cee. The author considers further interesting anatomical details for which 
the paper must be consulted. It wiil be noted that in the opinion of the 
author the results do not justify the excessive disintegration of (Enothera to 
which some of us have been inclined.— J. M. C 
IN A PAPER on teratology” M. Casimir De Candolle reaches the following 
conclusions: If the teratological variations of the floral organs have played 
a part in evolution, those which have resulted in the present complex forms 
are today the most rare; and also those monstrosities which are at present 
the most common indicate, so far as phanerogams are concerned, a tendency 
to a primitive simplicity of form. Consequently, if the progressive taxo- 
nomic monstrosities of the flower were not formerly more frequent and 
especially more varied than they are at present, they would not have been 
able to produce, through natural selection alone, that evolution which is 
thought to have resulted in the complex floral structures of the present day. 
By progressive variations, M. De Candolle meahs those which have taken a 
part in evolutionary progress.— oe ee 
E STRUCTURE of the Cyanophycez and Bacteria has recently been 
investigated by Professor Dr. Alfred Fischer."* He concludes that in neither 
of these groups is there a nucleus or any organ resembling a nucleus, but the 
Sreen rind of the Cyanophycee is to be regarded as a genuine chromato- 
Phore. It will be remembered that Hegler makes the statement that the 
so-called “central body”’ of the Cyanophycee is a genuine nucleus which 
divides by karyokinesis.—C. Le 
‘7 Archives des Sci. Phys. et Nat. IV. 3: [1-12]. 1897. 
; ® Untersuchungen iiber den Bau der Cyanophyceen und Bacterien, /. 3. Gustav 
Fischer: Jena 7. 
