1900 | CURRENT LITERATURE 69 
the foam theory ; and (4) the filar theory.” These are not true theories and 
the very misleading and defective statements of them will only convey errone- 
ous ideas of the really grand cytoplasmic studies of Altmann, Biitschli, Stras- 
burger, Wiesner and others. The author states that the “ cell can live with- 
out cytoplasm, but without a nucleus it is devoid of the power of growth and 
repair,’ a startling statement even to the layman, in consideratiou of the fact 
that on the opposite page it is stated that “cytoplasm is the seat of the active 
life processes of the plant.” It is quite evident that the defects cited and 
many others are largely due to carelessness rather than a lack of information. 
The illustrations are good, being carefully selected from the works of 
various authors. There are also good original illustrations. The citation 
of authorities is of great value to students who have the desire and opportunity 
to do collateral reading. 
The book is well made, with good type, paper, and fairly good binding. 
The index is very complete, but we regret that it is in two parts, 
A text-book of botany fully adapted to the needs of students of pharmacy 
is not yet produced, but the authors are to be congratulated upon having pro- 
duced a text which meets the requirements better than any other book upon 
the market. — ALBERT SCHNEIDER. 
By way of supplement to the above it needs to be said that Dr. Rusby’s 
part of the book does not depart from the usual type of books, in vogue 
twenty years ago, intended to “prepare” the student for “ plant analysis.” 
Twenty-seven pages are given to the cryptogams, which is too little for 
adequate presentation even in the most elementary way, and too much ‘to be 
wasted. Sixty-seven pages are all that can be spared to the morphology of 
root, stem, and leaf, and most of this is purely formal; while almost 150 
pages are devoted to the flower, fruit, analysis, collecting, nomenclature, etc. 
in this portion, also, the morphology is not modern, to say the least. Why 
assure a student that ‘a flower will obey certain well-defined laws” when the 
bulk of the chapters on the flower are concerned with explaining how they 
“disobey” these “laws” and in defining terms that are used to describe 
departures from a purely imaginary pattern? The whole treatment of the 
flower, indeed, proceeds upon the pernicious theory of metamorphosis. 
When Dr. Rusby enters upon the attempt to present the idea of alterna- 
tion of generations, beginning with spermatophytes, he essays a most difficult, 
if not impossible, task. His exposition shows that he has not understood the 
homology of some of the parts, and he has even misstated the process of 
fertilization, Indeed, whenever the author gets away from the terms neces- 
Sary for phytography, in which he is an adept, he betrays a lack of familiarity 
with modern thought that is only too common among systematists, even the 
8reatest. As an “introduction to analysis” the book may be useful, but as a 
‘morphology of plants” it is open to the most adverse criticism. The old was 
better C: Re: 
