‘SOME POPULAR BOOKS 85 
once had occasion to make this comment on books which have 
come under our notice, and it applies to those which are now 
Of these siorhisps the most attractive is British Wild Flowers, 
by the Rev. Professor Henslow (S.P.C.K., 8s.), and yet to this, as 
much. as to any of the rest, this criticism must apply. We learn 
from the preface that this is ‘much. more than a ‘revised 
edition’’’ of Anne Pratt’s Wild Flowers, but we eo that: = 
may ae be so regarded, although ‘“‘ much new matter 
much eliminated from A..Pratt’s work.” We ps 
told that the illustrations are all new, having been drawn. by 
have a low standard whether we regard pr figures from a scientific 
or an artistic standpoint. Anne Pratt’s book is one .of the 
leasantest memories of our r childhood, ana a lively canolieabiia of 
its ilustrations—a little stiff, rather crude in colouring, but strong 
oe ors by which in this “ Zab ge ore than revised” editio 
old figures are replaced. The method of a may . 
oastly to blame for the unpleasant colouring and general indis- 
tinctness ; but apart from this the figures are not only ap arTsan 
less - but absolutely misleading—look at Ranunculus bu 
(fig. 3) with six petals, on on not reflexed, or at ‘ Viola esp 
tica var.” (fig. 1 e plants are incorrectly named ; “ [beris’ 
amara”’ (fig. 14), cat whioks Pratt had an excellent figure, is here. 
represented by I. wmbellata—Mr. Henslow has ~— ame error in 
the text; ‘Geranium pratense” (fig. 30) is evidently G. san- 
figuring, to the iu of our British spec ies, we cannot guess ; 
the Michaelmas Daisy (fig. 72) though called Aster Tripolium can 
hardly be that species ; the figure (59) of Fennel suggests that a 
Senecio has become incorporated with it; Myosotis palustris occurs 
three times—fig. 58 (which we suspect to be Lycopsis), fg- 71, 
and fig. 104—the last quite a good figure, which gives us - 
opportunity of saying that some of the plates on w only on 
plant is represented are quite satisfactory (notably that of Tutsan) 
fig. 25) and suggest that Miss Layton can do better than most of 
her work in this book. - 
wish we could say that the unsatisfactorines: 
illustrations is compensated for by the excellence of the. ate — 
this we are unable to do. Even in the brief = reface “ Johns 
called ‘John ’’—and.this in a 8.P.C.K. book!; on p. 2 we ee a 
reference to “J. Gerard’s Herbal Historie of Plants” ; Marigold 
is not “from.the Virgin Mary” (p. 7), and the slightest acquain-, 
tance with Anglo-Saxon. vounbularies ee ould have a . Mr. 
Henslow that it was not “ sence the Caltha” from Calen- 
dula ; “ toute-saine” hardly means ’s well’ - 51) as applied 
