664 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIX. No. 1009 



names under a genus were chronological it 

 would facilitate matters, and while it seems to 

 he thus in many cases, it is by no means uni- 

 formly so. Under Gymnosporangium clavari- 

 ceforme four synonyms in the genus ^cidium 

 are cited, dated as follows, 1801, 1808, 1801 

 and 1905; four are also given here under 

 Roestelia in this order, 1849, 1887, 1880, 1815. 



In the matter of illustrations the present 

 part shows a considerable improvement over 

 the preceding parts. The drawings of the 

 spores show more accuracy in preparation and 

 do not look so diagrammatical. The fact that 

 other structures aside from the teleutospores, 

 such as peridial cells, have had representation 

 in these illustrations is a matter worthy of 

 favorable comment. The printing of the 

 plates on the regular paper makes them some- 

 what difficult to find. Since not all species 

 are illustrated it is not always possible to 

 tell from the plate and figure number in which 

 direction from the description one should turn 

 to find the illustration. This could be avoided 

 by including the page number of the plate 

 (they all have page numbers although they 

 are not printed upon them) along with the 

 plate and figure number where the reference 

 is given at the end of a description. It is also 

 very difficult to find the description of a figure 

 if one sees an illustration and desires to look 

 it up. Aside from the figure number there 

 might also be given the number of the page 

 where the description occurs. These items 

 would increase the amount of labor in prep- 

 aration, but would enhance the value of the 

 work sufficiently to warrant it. 



The authors are to be praised for the great 

 amount of valuable work they are doing with 

 this difficult group of fungi, and mycologists 

 in general, must be exceedingly glad that the 

 preparation of this large monograph has pro- 

 ceeded so steadily. With the appearance of 

 the present part the larger and more impor- 

 tant genera have received treatment. The 

 world-wide treatment of such complex plants 

 must necessarily entail an enormous amount of 

 labor and must necessarily involve the inclu- 

 sion of forms concerning which first-hand in- 

 formation may be meager. These authors 



must be commended for the use which they 

 make of the work of other specialists. 



That they have drawn freely upon the ob- 

 servations of others is especially apparent in 

 the arrangement of the keys, the form of 

 descriptive accounts, the synonymy, and in the 

 preparation of illustrations in this third 

 volume. A deplorable feature is that the 

 works of other writers and investigators may 

 receive only slight or even no credit for the 

 parts which are adopted by the authors or fol- 

 lowed closely, whereas in minor portions, 

 where there may be a difference of opinion 

 they see fit to call attention to them in such a 

 way as often to bring discredit upon the 

 works which are really so largely utilized. 



Feank D. Kern 



Pennsylvania State College, 

 State College, Pa. 



The Primitive Family as an Educational 



Agency. By James Arthur Todd. G. P. 



Putnam's Sons, New York and London, 1913. 



" The Primitive Family as an Educational 

 Agency " is frankly a brief against " the 

 family superstition " in education, a brief, let 

 one in turn be frank enough to say, that is 

 hardly needed by the ethnologist and that will 

 not be heeded, I venture to predict, by the 

 sentimentalist. 



To him or her Professor Todd has under- 

 taken to show that the past of the family is 

 not all it is supposed to be, that monogamy, 

 for example, is an acquired predilection, that 

 in primitive circles kinship may be an uncer- 

 tain notion and that the " natural bond " be- 

 tween parent and child is merely a latter day 

 figment. 



So sympathetic am I with Professor Todd's 

 main undertaking, the cornering of the senti- 

 mentalist, and so much in agreement with 

 his general contention that non-familial agen- 

 cies may have been or may become much more 

 efficient in education than the family that I 

 am reluctant to criticize his method and regret 

 having to question several of his minor argu- 

 ments. 



As to his method, it may be enough to 

 merely describe it as the method of illustra- 



