370 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [MAY 
The six by Dr. Arthur are: The special senses of plants ; Wild lettuce 
as weed and: compass plant; Universality of consciousness and pain; Two 
opposing factors of increase; The right to live; Distinction between plants 
and animals ; 
The six by Dr. McDougal are: The development of irritability ; Mimosa, 
a typical sensitive plant ; How cold affects plants; Chlorophyll and growth ; 
Leaves in spring, summer, and autumn; The significance of color. 
Into a detailed examination of the essays we cannot go. All are well 
written and interesting. Dr. McDougal’s deal chiefly with important facts of 
plant activity, while Dr. Arthur’s are inclined to be more speculative and 
philosophical. The latter, therefore, offer the greatest opportunity for criti- 
cism. Few will be able to concede the correctness of the author's definitions 
and premises in the essay on the Universality of consciousness and pain, 
wherein he seeks to maintain the thesis that “all living organisms, whether 
animal or plant, are capable of conscious pain to a degree commensurate 
with the requirements of their nature.’’ Indeed, he seems to destroy his own 
argument by concessions. For at the outset he excludes from consciousness, 
as he uses it, all idea of self-consciousness, which, he adds, “is necessary 
that the individual may, for instance, be aware of its own identity” (p- 65). 
Later he says: “... when the organism is aware of a feeling of plows 
or pain, or of any other sensation, knowing that the same is located within 
its own organs, it is possessed of consciousness ”’ (p. 71). 
Nor can we believe that Dr. Arthur has really found in the “ carbohydrous 
investment” of plants, and the “nitrogenous investment e of acimals 4 
“crucial test” for distinguishing them. Who can accept 4 criterion apie 
the author says, excludes the Olpidiacee and the Synchytriacee ron ; h 
rest of the Chytridineze? Does not the argument “it is known with pit 
certainty that they have no cellulose envelope ; they are, therefore, not plants, 
and must, in consequence, be animals,” beg the whole question ! nak 
It is a pity that the book should be so poorly manufactured. Bad p' 
reading and a “countrified ” binding, spoiling the artistic The 
the novice hand of the Minneapolis firm which did the mechanical part 
work of the authors deserves a better setting. The book may well agen 
place in public and school libraries, and is commended for popular rea me: 
The phytogeography of Nebraska.’ 
cological Pp 
of a series 
hytogeostaphy © 
Nebraska: Jaco 
es tne lant ge08" 
THIS is a distinct and noteworthy addition to the e a stall- 
raphy of this country. It is a general survey, the first 
4PounpD, RoscorE and CLEMENTS, FREDERIC E: a P 
Nebraska. I. General Survey. 8vo., pp. xxi sae ents 
North & Co. 1898. 
