92 NOTICES OF BOOKS AND MEMOIRS. 



■ 



The nomenclature adopted is as follows.: — The term Finif 



{form is very 



yfr 



This divides into Locoforms and Tyjriforms, which are marked 

 variations of it, having few connecting forms, and these often 

 discoverable away from them : of these Locoforms exhibit characters 

 acquired by climate and subsoil, and Typiforms a local distribution 

 owing chiefly to correlation with the animal kingdom. Besides 



»y« 



'forms, more differentiated 



Locoforms and Typijorms ; Avoforms, the still existing stem-forms of 

 Ftamiforms and Frceforms ; those of Locoforms, Typiforms, or Versi- 



forms ; Hybridoforms, resulting from the crossing of Finifornis ; and 

 a few others. 



The genetic scheme adopted is the following : 

 I. Folia omnia simplicia . 



A. Formse normales : Archimonopkylli. 



B. Bamiformse Dactylophyllorum : N eomonophyllu 

 II. Folia plurima simplicia : Monophylloides. 



III. Folia composita, floralia interdum simplicia. 



A. Fruticosus; stipuhe asquales semiadnatse. 



(+) Folia pinnata : Pterophylli. 

 (+t) Folia palmata : Dactylophylli et Neopolyphylli. 



B. Fruticosus ; stipulse asquales latae axillares : Neaxy- 



loides. 



C. Herbaceus ; stipulse plerumque insequales partem 



perulatae : Axyloides. 



The group Archimonophylli is then taken in hand. R. moluccanus, 

 L., is the Gregifc -■- -- jl * - - - - - — - - . 



form ; and R. Dalibarda, L., the Finiform. Then follows an elaborate 

 enumeration of the first-named species, which is understood in 

 a very wide sense, after which we come upon a table of gigantic 

 dimensions containing the names of many species of the section, 

 and showing their various structural agreements with the several 

 varieties of the Gregiform, and this is supplemented by short notices 

 and taxonomic criticisms on the individual species. The other 

 sections are similarly treated. 



The author having had many opportunities of studying the 

 genus m the field during his travels in Asia, stands in a much more 

 commanding position for the enunciation of his views than would 

 De the case had they been arrived at by work upon dried material 

 alone. In spite of this advantage it is impossible not to see that 

 he has attacked the problem from one side only. We think that it 

 by no means results that when the life-history of the genus is 

 worked out the conclusions here adopted will be adhered to in the 

 fuller evidence of facts. The author's fundamental mistake seems 

 to lie m the selection of an unwieldy group consisting mainly 

 of members not in cultivation. Should he try his hand in a more 

 complete way on a smaller one, we venture to think that he will find 

 a more suitable field for the successful employment of his energies. 



S. M. 



