24 NOTICES OF BOOKS. 
point elicited of interest to us in Britain, is that he shows etl, 
y evidence drawn from specimens and _partl 
published records, that Willdenow in characterising re 
mollissima had no clear idea of the plant to which Fries afterwards 
applied the name, which does not exist at all i in the neighbourhood of 
B tha 
ceived notion of the excessive polymorphism of the Rose-species 
the views which he expresses upon this matter I am not prepared to 
coincide, but his note at the end on the solidarity of characters and 
the existence of parallel variations is so excellent, and shows so well 
edo gle and judgment that govern his researches, that I must ex- 
As ae in 1861, in the preface to the first edition of the Manual 
of the Belgian Flora ct have said a few words on the solidarity of 
characters. B solidarity of characters I mean the correlation which 
exists between characters that manifest themselves in different organs © 
of the same plant. I will cite an example to explain more clearly what 
I mean. Thus in Roses when glands appear we see them manifested on 
the a face of the ieee the stipules and bracts, on the petioles, the 
‘hey: feadh the er surface of the foliar or S see 
in these different seats of glandulosity a series of ease ey EN characters, 
whereas there really exists only one. Predominance of glan ulosity 
in Roses is usually linked with dubie-cothing: 6 of the leaves. Villo- 
sity in the genus offers the same phenomena as glandulosity. On the 
other hand, a certain amount of hypertrophy or atrophy falling short 
of monstrosity, elongation, dwarfness, giantism, are in their turn the 
of a crowd of the minor species which have only a mere book exis- 
. 112. 
e remainder of the brochure is taken up by a detailed review of 
three recent publications on the genus—QGodet’s account of the Jurassic 
oses in his supplement of 1869 to his ‘‘ Flore Br Jura Suisse et 
Frangais”’; Scheutz’s Studies of the Scandinavian Roses, Wexio, 1872, 
a valuable monograph, but unfortunately in Swedish ; of the diagnoses 
of the new forms described in which M. Crépin here § gives translations 
into Latin; and my own monograph of the British species published 
Of my general plan of species-limitation he expresses full approval. 
Most of his criticisms on points of detail are certainly well founded. He 
proposes to alter two of my names for primary species—mollis, Smith, 
instead of neilinead” Willd., for reasons already cited ; and inodora, Fries, 
ssi 7 gant a, M.B., on the ground that my plant, which is 
me the same niga revit he saw my sees; and M. Crépin now 
