CURRENT LITERATURE 463 
tangium of Azolla is also retained (p. 414). “Recent” still appears in referring 
to papers, recent when the first edition was issued in 1895 (e. g., Waldner 1887, 
Guignard 1889, Buchtien 1887), but now rather ancient. 
In style and method of presentation the second edition has no advantage 
over the first. So far as typography affects it, there seems to be almost ingenuity 
in selecting for chapter headings and especially for subheads, the most confused 
ad, to a novice, confusing forms. Thus, interpreted by accepted typographical 
canons, The biology of the Marchantiales is a subhead under MonociEa; and 
Tae AcroGyNAE is a subhead under ANACROGYNAE, and coordinate with 
ANELATEREAE and ELATEREAE. Citation of bibliographical references in sub- 
heads is awkward and is a new blemish, e. g., 
LycopoDINEAE (Potonie (3); Scott (1); Solms Laubach (2) ). 
The bibliography, to whose enlargement and completeness the author refers 
inthe preface, would have profited by greater care. Not only are there numerous 
mistakes in the text-references, one paper being cited when another is meant, 
but there are papers cited in the text which do not appear in the bibliography 
atall. Five such cases came to light by pure chance—GarBER, PorsiLp, ASH- 
WoRTH, BAUKE, and GraNp’ Eury; how many could be found by searching 
Weknow not. Asa minor, but not trifling, matter may be mentioned the unsyste- 
matic mode of writing citations; e. g., in the same page four of Bower’s Studies 
m the morphology of spore-producing members are cited thus: 
Roy. Soc. Phil. Trans., vol. clxxxv: 1894, Pp. 473» 
London, 1896. [Nothing more.] 
hil. Trans. Roy. Soc., series B, vol. 189: 35-81, 1897. 
Phil. Trans., ser. B., vol. 192: 29 138, 1899. 
A like variety can be found in the citation of journals. There are traces 
ofa self-consistent system, however, which hardly goes beyond the adoption, 
ftom the one most widely used in America, of its most unimportant feature—the 
colon following the volume number! : 
= “Proof-reading throughout the volume has been very bad, for much of which 
E bd Printing office and the publishers are blameworthy, but not for all. 
oo The index is really absurd. It is charitable to believe that the author farmed 
this out to an inexpert hand, and what he did not do to spoil it by sins of omission 
¥ Commission, the compositor did by ingenious disarrangement of a too com- 
Plex ‘ystem of indention. E. g., “Hepaticae” (a curious entry when there are 
se Pages about them) has thirty-nine bare entries; its subordinate phrase 
semmination of spores” has one, and “spores” one (the same), while the pane 
ogg germination are referred to dozens of times in the text. “Acrogynae 
ty five entries, but “‘ Acrogenous liverworts” in the next line has one, and that 
ane among the five! “Affinities” has only two sub-references, Matonta and 
a. whereas almost every large group has under it in the text a conspic- 
Subhead, like A finities of the Musci, and so on. 
