December 25, 1914] 



SCIENCE 



935 



The author of the excellent four-hundred- 

 page volume treating of the British rust fungi 

 has most appropriately begun his preface by 

 reference to the eminent achievements of 

 Plowright embodied in a similar volume 

 twenty-four years previously. Plowright's 

 volume contained a large amount of original 

 matter derived from observation and experi- 

 ment. In his conception of the Uredinales 

 Plowright stood head and shoulders above 

 his English co-workers. He was a leader 

 among British uredinologists. 



The volume by Mr. Grove is a worthy suc- 

 cessor to Plowright's commanding work. 

 Even if it does not measure up to its proto- 

 type in leadership, it can justly be said to 

 present the interesting group of rust fungi, 

 as represented in England and Scotland, in a 

 serviceable and acceptable manner. 



In the eighty-four pages devoted to the 

 general part of the work the author has be- 

 gun by giving in detail the life history of 

 Puccinia Caricis, sensibly selecting it instead 

 of the usual P. graminis as a typical example 

 of a mst, supplemented by a briefer account 

 of eight other species. Then are successively 

 discussed spore-forms and groupings in ac- 

 cordance with their succession, sexuality in- 

 cluding nuelear division, specialization, im- 

 munity and phylogeny. 



In the larger systematic part of the volume 

 about two hundred and fifty species are de- 

 scribed, and nearly all illustrated with orig- 

 inal outline drawings. The general plan of 

 the systematic part is modelled after Sydow's 

 " Monographia Uredinearum." The illustra- 

 tions are superior to those in that work, and 

 approach those of Fischer's " TJredineen der 

 Schweiz," while the method of description is 

 similar to that introduced by the writer in 

 the " North American Flora." Recognition 

 of the diagnostic value of the pores in the 

 urediniospores is especially noteworthy. The 

 technical description is followed by helpful 

 notes for most of the species. Placing that 

 part of the technical description derived from 

 extra-territorial material in brackets pro- 

 motes clearness and accuracy. The synonymy 



is said "to show the origin and authority of 

 the name used," as well as to include refer- 

 ences to well-known works, the name for each 

 species being selected in accordance with 

 the " principle of priority " as restricted by 

 the International Eules of 1905 and 1910, yet 

 to one who has carefully looked into the his- 

 tory of rust names the result appears to ac- 

 cord more with what one might designate ac- 

 ceptable usage rather than the rigid applica- 

 tion of any uniform rules. 



If one accepts the conservative standpoint 

 of the author there is nothing of importance 

 in the work that calls for adverse criticism. 

 Both author and publisher are to be com- 

 mended for the excellence of the volume. 



It may be pointed out that in the author's 

 zeal to illustrate with British material a kind 

 of spore which does not occur in connection 

 with any rust in Great Britain, the identical 

 cut which does service as a urediniospore on 

 page 208 is reproduced on page 34 in the gen- 

 eral part as an amphispore, although the text 

 says it is only the " nearest approach " to be 

 found among British species. What harm 

 could have come from illustrating a kind of 

 spore not found in Britain by an extra-Brit- 

 ish example is a mystery to a non-Britisher. 



It may also be said that the author has 

 doubtless been led into error by accepting 

 the assignment to the genus Hemileia of 

 three species of Vredo on orchids. The 

 writer has examined original material on 

 which this assumption is founded, and be- 

 lieves that no teleospores have yet been dis- 

 covered, those supposed to be such being only 

 oblong urediniospores. The morphology of 

 these rusts, as well as their host relationship, 

 is entirely against their inclusion in the genus 

 Hemileia. 



Exception must be taken to the author's 

 statement that " the genus Milesia is now 

 dropped [for the later Milesina], because it 

 was founded on an imperfect state which might 

 belong to any one of several genera." It is 

 true that it was founded on an " imperfect 

 state," if the uredineal sori are to be spoken of 

 as such, but wholly untrue that the spores of 

 this stage are not distinctively characteristic 



