86 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
to Hypericum Androsemum; ‘ Molochia”’ (p. 58 and index) should 
be Melochia; and s i 
i 
laneous items. It is much to be regretted that the S.P.C.K., with 
its wide sphere of influence, should allow itself to be responsible 
The plates, although in a few cases scrappy—it is a mistake in 
of this kind to put more than one plant on a plate—are 
artistic, accurate, and well printed, and in all respects, as will be 
seen at once by any one who will take the trouble to compare 
them, are markedly superior to those in the S.P.C.K. book. The 
letterpress is simple and not very instructive, but pleasant in style, 
and conveys a certain amount of information.” Altogether it is a 
very pretty book in every way (binding included) and we cordially 
recommend it as a first book for children. But why, one wonders, 
do not publishers see the necessity of consulting an expert before 
producing books dealing with technical subjects? e 
accura 
G. molle or 
perhaps G. pusillum; her “ Verbascum Thapsus” is V. migrum ; 
and we wonder she did not see that the plant she calls “ Scabiosa 
succisa’’ is identical with the one she figures as S. arvensis. 
And Miss Rankin should not have passed “Chiledonium” and 
2 
ee technical terms and expressions, shall yet be strictly 
correct and scientific’ is no easy thing to produce ; | 
F o tells us in his preface that he has attempted to 
they meet with. on ‘their walks are never likely to go farther than 
