' 
38 The Botanical Gazette. [January, 
“fruit-rudiment” or “amphigonium” used in its stead, antheridia and 
fruit-rudiments being the usual association of terms. The archego- 
nium, that is “fruit-rudiment,” is said to be a multicellular sheath about 
the oogonium, and still it is the fruit-rudiment that is fertilized and 
develops into the fruit. It seems that the “fruit” of moss, which is 
the embyro of the sporogonium, develops “brood-cells” (the spores), — 
and yet “it is best to look upon the formation of fruit as being com- 
plete as soon as fertilization has taken place; from this moment the 
ooplasm must be considered to be an embryo, and its envelopes to be 
fruit coats.” Just what the conception of “fruit” is in the authors 
mind the reviewer has failed to discover. “The tissue produced from 
a macrospore in the Se/agine/l@ has been compared to the ovule as it 
occurs in the phanerogams” is certainly a curious statement, as also 
“these two (polar nuclei) approach one another at about the moment 
of fertilization.” Evidently the author has a theory of fertilization 
and fruit formation to work out, but it is so at variance with our cut 
rent notions of morphology that it seems to result in utter confusion 
How such a presentation is made consistent with a short account of 
alternation of generation given at the close of the volume is inexpli- 
cable. In this account the cumbrous ideas and terminology are aba 
doned and archegonium, gametophyte, and sporophyte appear in log 
ical order throughout the whole series of plants, including the phan 
erogams. In his preface to the chapters on reproduction the autho! 
assures us that “hitherto the subjects of fruit-formation and of the al- 
ternation of generations in their relation to the history of plants have — 
remained unrecognized and unelucidated. In one of the following 
sections of this volume an attempt will be made to solve this great 
mystery.” 
In spite of the strange presentation of fertilization, the book re 
mains, as was stated in the outset, a most valuable summary of ecole 
gical facts and a model of interesting style in presentation. 
Minor Notices. 
THE MOST RECENT “Contribution” from the Botanical Division of 
the Department of Agriculture contains a report by John M. Coultef 
and J. N. Rose upon Mexican Umbelliferze, mostly from Oaxaca, be: 
ing based upon collections of C. G. Pringle and E. W. Nelson. SP® 
cial attention was given to the group by these collectors, and the result 
is that Oaxaca has been discovered to contain an unusually rich UY 
belliferous flora. But ten species had been reported from that stal® 
while the collections of Pringle and Nelson contain forty-two species 
twenty-three of which are new. Among the new species, four new 
