A HISTORY OF BOTANY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 291 
prejudiced account of the contents; but in the present case this 
so admirably summarizes the aim of the volume that we cannot do 
better than reproduce it, with the addition that in our judgement 
the object the author had in view has been largely, though not 
quite completely, attained. This object, we are told, was ‘in the 
first instance, to trace the development of botany as a science 
from the empiricism of the erg a and the manner in which 
truly scientific conceptions came into vogue. It describes the 
part taken by British botanists in 1iKe development of the science 
generally, and narrates their activity in all its departments. It 
traces the course of botanical panera and shows how it made 
its way into the curricula of the British Universities, helped by 
the herb garden, the field excursion, the botanic garden and the 
laboratory.” 
For nearly thirty years Green had occupied an important 
position as a teacher and lecturer on plant 28 pec) fc which 
he published an Introduction in 1900. His volume on The 
History of Botany from 1860 to 1900, a siyplement | to os con- 
tinuation of Sachs’s well-known work, was published in 1909, and 
was reviewed in this Journal for 1910 (p. 117). In the course of 
the notice it was remarked that the author was “ naturally more 
at home in plant physiology” than in other branches of the 
subject, and one cannot but feel that — volume now before us, 
excellent as it is, would have been mo e comple te as an account 
of “the development of the science generally" if some systematist 
had been associated in its compilation. ‘‘ Lions,’ said the king 
of the beasts, when he had been rae by the owner through a 
conga in which his fellows were always represented as inferior to 
woulc have fared better sage lions been the artists,” and 
garage to systematic botany, justifies, if it does demand, 
a prone: the names of H. N. Ridley, W. Fawcett, Spencer 
E. ae . W. P. Hiern, are only a ered that occur 
to one while Picton Mae Dr. Rendle is only refe to in 
connection with a physiologica cal observation. In like manner 
recent Britich geet and British botany are practically 
ignored 
The biographical notices are in the main accurate, although it 
is not easy to ascertain on what sone le an author’s work is | 
selected for mention—e.g. under asters, no reference is 
