1912] CURRENT LITERATURE 75 
and compilation of facts from the literature than a carefully digested product 
of it. It is in no sense critical and even lacks organization. This, of course, 
is in part a necessary outcome of the concreteness, and it is possible that it is 
the best sort of statement in view of the aim. Very seldom does the author 
refer to the fundamental physics and chemistry of plant activity. No men- 
tion is made of the application of the Van’t Hoff temperature law of rate of 
chemical reaction or of the Weber-Fechner law to plant processes. Again, no 
adequate picture is given of the physics of the material and energy exchange 
of the foliage leaf, a set of processes which BRown and Escoms have, in the 
main, reduced to pure physics. In this connection, we find the author empha- 
sizing BLACKMAN’s misleading statement that the foliage leaf under illumina- 
tion maintains a temperature considerably above the surrounding air. This 
is possible if the evaporation power of the air or the water supply of the leaf is 
low. On the other hand, if the water supply of the leaf and the evaporation 
power of the air are high, the leaf will maintain a temperature below that of 
the surrounding air whether illuminated or not. In spite of the fact that the 
significant work of Brown and Escoms has been much cited, it has failed to 
have a sufficient influence upon the statements in texts. 
The book is marked by carefully guarded statements, which is certainly a 
virtue in any scientific work; but this is often carried to an exasperating 
extreme, involving guards where our knowledge is sure. It is seldom that a 
text is so free from personal hobbies of the author. 
The greatest disappointment in the book lies in the apparently careless 
way in which it was finished. Minor errors are numerous. Careful reading 
of a very few pages shows a number of these: p. 203, the use of the old term 
“eyanophyll” for the term chlorophyllin; p. 204, ‘aqueous carbon dioxide”’ 
for aqueous solution of carbonic acid; p. 205, “fruit sugar” for grape sugar. 
In many cases a change in phrasing or in choice of words would make the 
description much more telling; p 204, the author speaks of the decomposition 
of CO, and H.O when the thing to be emphasized is the reduction of carbonic 
acid. The need of the criticism of the manuscript by a number of physiologists 
is evident.—WILLIAM CROCKER. 
NOTES FOR STUDENTS 
Current taxonomic literature.—J. C. ARTHUR (Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 38: 
369-378. 1911) in continuation of monographic work on the North American 
rusts records new species in Puccinia and Uromyces. A “Key to American 
and European Adlium rusts” is included in the article—H. H. BARTLETT 
(Rhodora 13:163-165. 1911) has published a new species of Euphorbia (E. 
arundelana) from Maryland. The same author (ibid. 209-211. pl. 93) 
describes and illustrates a new species of Oenothera (O. Tracyi); the species 
is based on specimens grown from seed a by S. M. Tracy near 
Tensaw, Ala.— . BLANCHARD (ibid. ~195) records a new variety of 
Rubus (R. cancilanads var. nip SN from Newfoundland; the same 
