PLANT RELATIONS 193. 
correspond with that in the text; for instance, plate 106 bears the 
end ‘ Erianthus capensis Nees, var. villosa Stapf,’ but no mention 
of the variety is made in the text. The references are meagre and 
sometimes inadequate; none, for instance, is given in the case of 
Andropogon schirensis Hochst., var. angustifolia Stapf, or 4. hirti- 
? ar. semiberbis Stapf, which are described on pp. 340 and 
337 respectively of the Flora Capensis, vol. vii., but would appear 
to date from the present publication. The Flora is, however, cited 
for a later plate, A. nardus var. validus Stapf. Beferences should 
of course have been given throughout to the Flora Capensis. 
bd . 
gain, when a man is 
rts 
om the man in the field. Notes on the colour of the culms, 
sheaths, leaves, or spikelets, and on the general habit and habitat 
and the nature of the ground, give life to the description ; and i 
the case of a colonial publication like the present add considerably 
to the value. Such notes are, however, very rare. 
and specific names form a commendable feature of the Synopsis, but 
no justification is given for Aera, which dates from Dr. Ascherson’s 
Flor. Brandenb. 1864 (not 1804, as printed in the text), and 
displaces Aira L. Gen. Pl. 1754. Similarly, on p. 298, Airopsis is 
misspelt deropsis. We note the displacement, on ground of priority, 
were also puzzled for a time by citations such as “A. u. G. Syn. I. 
301 (1899),”’ appended to names appearing for the first time. The 
reference is of course to the actual page in the part now before us, 
where the name appears. To say the least, the citation is un- 
necessary. i uh 
Plant Relations: a First Book of Botany. By Joun M. Coutrer, 
-M., Ph.D. 8vo, pp. ix, 264. With 206 plates and figures. 
New York: Appleton. 1899. 
entary student of botany is at present attracting some 
attention. Several excellent little books have been written for him 
vi 
