LINT^EAN SOCIETT OF LOXDON. Ixxvli 



insects and cryptogams, have appeared : — Ratzoburg's • Waldverderb- 

 niss,' of which one part is still wanting to complete the second 

 volume, and Willkomm's ' Microscopical Enemies of the Forest.' I 

 may also mention Ettinghausen's publications, illustrating by na- 

 ture-printing the arborescent and shrubby vegetation of Austria, as 

 specially useful to the student of paloGontological botany. 



Switzerland. 



Geneva continues to be the seat of considerable botanical activity, 

 J. Mueller of Argau's monograph of Euphorbiacese, forming the 

 second part of the fifteenth volume of De Candolle's ' Prodromus,' 

 fully justifies the anticipations we had formed as to the scientific 

 merits of the work. Some defects in form have been pointed out by 

 various critics. The want of an index of species will, no doubt, be 

 supplied by a continuation of Buck's Indexes to previous volumes. 

 One much more to be regretted is that innovation in nomencla- 

 ture by which the author ascribes to himself every species of which 

 he has modified the circumscription. The distinguished editor dis- 

 claims all responsibility, for he has given up the attempt to require 

 uniformity in the monographs collected in this great work. The 

 comments, however, Avhich have been made upon the subject have 

 probably been the cause of his taking up the whole question of the 

 laws of nomenclature as recognized by botanists. The great want 

 of some definite rule which naturalists would all be governed by had 

 been felt by many zoologists, and Sir "William Jardine several years 

 ago laid the subject before the British Association. Committees were 

 formed, and botanists invited to join. When, however, the code 

 of laws came to be definitely discussed at the Birmingham meeting 

 in 1866, the botanists withdrew; for the practice amongst us had 

 been much more settled than it appeared to have been amongst zoo- 

 logists, and we felt that laws laid down long since by such men 

 as Linnfeus, De Candolle, and the Jussieus, founded on what ap- 

 peared to them the best suited to the objects in view, and sanc- 

 tioned by custom, carried much greater weight than the decisions of 

 any majority of a fortuitous assemblage of gentlemen, some, no 

 doubt, of great experience, but others quite ignorant of the practical 

 working of any disputed regulation. I have not heard how far 

 zoologists have generally considered their code sufficiently settled 

 to ensure obedience. Amongst botanists there have appeared of 

 late, unfortunately, symptoms of opposition to established custom, 



