208 
plantes, and finally in 1912 the Annales de la station d’éssais de 
semences. he annual seed lists (Index—now ‘ Delectus”— 
minum quas Hortus Botanicus Imperialis Petropolitanus pro- 
mutua commutatione offert), which were started by F. E. L. 
Fischer in 1835 and the earlier issues of which contain ees 
tions of many new nae have been continued so far without a 
reak. 
The bicentenary of the Imperial Botanic Garden of St. Peters- 
burg has called forth the publication of a great memoir on the 
history (from Hass to 1913) and the organization of the Garden. 
So far, one volume, “Historical Sketch an the eee Botanic 
Garden of St. nea aay (1713-1913),” . I. Lipsky, has 
been published, a quarto of 412 pages ae 54 ae mostly 
views from the Garden and in the houses. Not less than 297 
pages are given up to the early history of the Garden (1713- 
1823), so much of which has hitherto been obscure. 
Like most modern scientific works published in Russia, the 
memoir is written in Russian, as is the bulk of the more recent 
publications that have emanated from the great Garden at St- 
Petersburg, although some of them are accompanied by sum- 
maries in German or French. In so far as botany is concerned, 
a great change has come about during the last two decades in the 
use of Russian by Russian writers. Before then German, and 
to a smaller extent Latin and French, were the recognized 
vehicles for the communication of the results of botanical 
research work achieved by Russians in Russia. The history of 
the development of science in Russia is sufficient to explain that 
fact. Today Russian science is rooted in the Russian people, 
and it has begun to speak almost exclusively in its own native 
tongue. Those who wish to see science internationalized—and 
in the end science is of all countries and not of any particular one 
—may sigh at the new burden which is laid on their shoulders. 
by the upgrowth of a rapidly increasing literature written in a 
language which, beautiful as it may be, is really very difficult. 
Latin as a means of in si eal gia is—apart from technicak 
desertion practi dead and artificial languages are as 
mote as ever from i ee ion. There is indeed for 
