FLORA PYRENEA 288 
P. Busant: Flora Pyrenea, vol. ii., pp. 718. Mediolani, mpccco. 
Tus is a posthumous work, carefully edited by Prof. 0. Penzig, 
of Genoa; the first volume was published in 1897, and fully noticed 
in this Journal for April, 1898; and the third volume is promise 
for next year. The present volume comprises twenty-nine orders, 
from Monvtropacee to Grossulariee inclusive, which are placed in the 
subclass Calyciflore. e numbering of the orders is somewhat 
erratic: the first of them is numbered 42, whereas the last order of 
the first volume bore the same number, and Nos. 56 to 58 in this 
volume are wanting. The genera and species are not numbered, 
but there are in all 274 genera and 1020 species included in the 
twenty-nine orders, besides a few plants mentioned but rejected. 
For the sake of comparison, it may be noted that the number of 
species given in Gautier’s Cat. Raisonné I'l. Pyrén.-Orient. (1898) 
for the same portion of the vegetable kingdom is about three 
“per cent. greater. ‘his rather lar umber for a portion only 
on moderate lines and in which he includes twenty-four species, 
whereas Gautier enumerates a hundred. 
As in the first volume, there are found the same critical care 
taken in the discussion of each plant, the same fulness of synonymy, 
the same attempt to respect the work of the most ancient authors, 
the same desire to employ an obsolete or original rather than the 
regular nomenclature, and in this respect the same disregard for 
the settled practice of modern masters. ‘ 
ough there appears to be no new species described, the 
amount of detailed information largely derived from the personal 
explorations of the author, and the mass of research into the 
bearing upon the plants that occur in n the other hand, the 
eccentric nomenclature will be regarded by most botanists as a 
serious blot, a as a fault sufficient to condemn the 
whole book, The very large number of new and unnecessary names 
for old and familiar plants will be denounced as a hindrance, and the 
useful parts of the work will stand in danger of being ignored. The 
blame must to some extent be shared by the literary executors of 
the author, by the learned editor, and by all other persons who may 
be responsible for the publication ; since the author died about twelve 
years ago, it may be justly urged that, if the author had lived to 
observe the tendency and needs of botanical science as they exist 
at present, he might perhaps have repented of many or most of the 
changes which he had proposed, and have learned to see the practical 
and scientific force of the principles which now govern the choice of 
names; at all events, so long as they remained only in manuscript 
they did no harm, and until actual publication completed the work 
science could not suffer. : 
The following is a sample—perhaps an awful example—of inde- 
pendent licence, showing the author’s method :—The first genus 
