168 REMARKS ON BOTANICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY. 



At the outset, let me say that I am not actuated by the slightest 

 desire to depreciate the labours of Pritzel ; on the contrary, 

 I yield to no one in admiration of the patience and assiduity 

 he has displayed in that very painstaking and indispensable volume; 

 but whilst fully admitting the great value of the ' Thesaurus,' it 

 would be idle and foolish to shut our eyes to its shortcomings. 



The printing of the first edition, which bears the date of 1851 

 on the title page, extended from 1847 to 1851, taking in a portion 

 of the publications which appeared in 1847. The scheme of the 

 work includes not only strictly botanical works, but gardening, 

 medical, chemical, and even philological treatises were inserted— 

 anything and everything in fact which touched upon plants. So 

 comprehensive, indeed, was the plan, that we find entries like the 

 following, the claim to admission being decidedly slender:— 



Sendel (Xathanael). Electrologiae per vara tentamina historica 



ac physica continuand* Missus I. . . Elbingro . . . 



1725. 4to. (9555). Followed by three other works, also 



on Amber (9556-8). 



The following have still slighter claims to notice :— 



Sanden (Heinrich von). De succino electricorum principe. 



D. Eegiomonti 1714. 4to. (8985). 



Tod (George). Plans, elevations, and sections of hot-houses, 



green-houses, an aquarium, conservatories, &c, recently 



built in different parts of England, for various noblemen 



and gentlemen. London, . . , 1807. fol. (10346). 



I lie nrst tour fasciculi of the second edition of the ' Thesaurus' 



were issued m 1872, as far as the name Tournefort, and 



thence the publication was suspended in consequence of the illness 



and subsequent death of the author. The work was completed by 



a ' i * • /essen, fasciculi i. to vii. being issued together in 1877. 



as regards the latter portion, it is somewhat difficult to apportion 



the blame, m places where the faulty part might have existed in 



rritzel s manuscript, or was due to the editor undertaking the 



thankless task of completing the labours of another. However, 



W^°ii / n ?r are ambiguous; thus, the editor is clearly 



•Pfprvari +„ a • ' I uei l m S> yu J™", 1870," for if he had 

 !w ?% ?■ t . mam i eutry on P" 10 be would have found that 

 S if? a ° n a . lr ^ dy reCOT ded. Another singularly unfortu- 

 Z It i hp 1$ 1 t0 > f0Uud in Visia ^'« works, where the last 



laces on n f^™ ^ "^ are omitted from their V* *" 

 WW 1 l ' aud are mserted iu tlie addenda hi bulk on p. 359. 

 oc^rf i ! T" ma ! y be /° ted on P- 502 > **«■ the name of Trim** 



mZSTSSh ? -n emg takeu for 1863 ' and s0 P laced ' the 



, P „ LI r ? d f"""" er > wllilst the third is right- It would 



LiS Z US f \\ 0t t0 h f ai ' tily tlmnk Di ' Jesse11 ^ his labours in the 



ft, n nZ T G P 7stemati « Portion, which he has drawn up in a 



sunnZl frZT 1 * maUner tlian the old ° n *> and moreover has 

 dromt n!fT n Pl '7T? edition m ^ ™* unaccountably 

 chopped out from the alphabetical portion of ed. ii. 



