94 The Botanical Gazette. [February, 
this moss has been exploited until the very name is a wearines 
to the flesh. 
Dr. Campbell has laid us under obligations further in publishing a 
large number of new drawings, whose fresh ds tl i 
as their natural look. Many of these leave nothing to be desired, & 
pecially the outline drawings, but some are really too sketchy ant 
crude to be found in such good company. The re-drawing of illus 
trations from other papers is not usually well done. One would 
rather see Luerssen’s beautiful figures of Salvinia, for instance, that | 
these pen sketches of them. 
We have more serious fault to find with the book on the score of 
terminology than any other. The homologies among the archego 
to use sporogonium and prothallium in a way that would be confusilg 
toa novice. For example: “The most striking difference, then, be 
tween the sporogonium of Anthoceros and the sporophyte of the 
simple pteridophytes,” etc., p. 51 3. The subheads are not only evel” 
where particularly illogical but also lend their aid to create confusidl 
of ideas. For example, under the Marattiacez, there is a subheah 
the gametophyte, under which the sporophyte is also described; undet 
Isoetaceze the subheads are the gametophyte, the embryo, the spol 
phyte, the sporangium. 
This failure to discard obsolescent terms leads naturally to the 0% 
casional inculcation of some antiquated ideas. E. g., p. 5) “Ii . 
sporophyte, the latter being, physiologically, merely a spore-fruit - ° 
This is very questionable from the physiologists’ standpoint ant 
the less said about such analogies in morphological treatises the ” 
ter. 
If we may now express regret that the author did not provide® 
good index—something more than a mere register of names—OUF = 
welcome task of pointing out the few blemishes in a most praiseworl 
book shall be concluded. 
The soil. 
