ARTICLES IN JOURNALS 101 
delimited by Pfitzer in the Pflanzenfamilien (ii. Abt. 6, 91); Dr. 
Kra enzlin, however, prefers to include also the genera Brachy- 
than has recently been assigned to it by several workers on the 
Order. Pfitzer, for instance, considered as distinct both lrg 
Lindl. and Deremera Rehb. f.—or, as he erroneously spelt 
Deremeria. In this Journal for 1895 (p. 277), in conjunction sith 
Mr. Schlechter, we extended the latter genus, thinking it would be 
useful to include several species which differ strikingly in habit 
from the other species of Holothria, as well as in characters of the 
column and stigma. Mr. Rolf @, i n the Flora of Tropical Africa 
(vii. 195, 1898), took a oe view. Like Pfitzer, we all fell into 
the error of writing Deremeria. Dr. Kraenzlin cannot accept our 
views on the limits of the genets, and includes Derwmera in Holo- 
thriv, pointing out at the same time the misspelling. Unfortunately 
he makes a second error in so doing, and starts a genus Deromeria, 
and on the same page another, De Remera. The former is no doubt 
a slip, but for the latter there seems no justification. On p. 575 
it is stated that Reichenbach wrote De Remera, but the spelling in 
the original description is Deremera, which form Dr. Kraenzlin also 
uses. We have, however, previously mentioned the recurrence of 
errors and inconsistencies in citation and reference which should 
have been avoided in an important work of the kind. 
that, when the volume is complete, a _ vive be given of the eges 
A. B. R. 
ARTICLES IN dieses age 
en 
flora’ (co . §. Korshinsky & N onteverde, ‘ Best siies- 
versuche an Buchweisen.’ — (No. b 
: ; 1 Fe 
gische & hepaticologische Fragme ente.” — (Nos. ee Mee: oa ve 
Krause, ‘ Floristiche Notizen.’ — (No. 7: 7 Feb.). : Lemmer- 
mann, ‘ Spirodiscus Kichwald oder Ophiocytium Naegeli?’ — (No. 8: 
The dates assigned to the numbers are those which appear on their cover 
or oo bat it must not always be inferred that this is the actual date of 
publica 
