120 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
p. 360, but faces the title. It seems to us discreditable that so 
wealthy and important a Society as the 8.P.C.K. should send out 
a meen Oe so unsatisfactory ; the body of Mr. Boulger’ s edition, 
as we sai en reviewing it on its first appearance, is excellent, 
but the widisions have not improved it 
Ir is not only the 8.P.C.K. which fails to reconcile religion and 
science: the rival body, Sa anaant in = ie ere of another 
aspect of Anpligarisite! is equal ts in that 
direction. We open the pretty sal cheap little efits on Children’s 
Flowers (1s. 6d.) issued by the Religious Tract Society, and find 
a coloured frontispiece elled “‘ Primrose, Daisy and Harebell.” 
The Primrose is a Cowslip, the Daisy is not characteristic, there 
are, indeed, two or three small Harebells, but tienen though 
unmentioned are two pin flowers, one of which seems to be a 
un impression which, it is fair to say, is to a large 
extent removed by the letterpress—we cannot say much for the 
soo (uncoloured) plates. We are inclined to t it is by no 
h 
latin initials and the publishers put no date on their titlepage— 
ways a suspicious sign !—but so oct as the botany pees: Mr. (?) 
. L. Dyson has well. ut two dozen 
ommon pla a ikieedinee dandelions, clover, and the 
we, ccupy aS many chapters, and are described in simple 
language ly ait accurately, and in an interesting style: the 
book, in fact, is really suited to those whom its title indicates, 
and may be cordially recommended to those who do not object to 
tion i 
r 
nature up to nature’s God”’ is right enough, but to tell children 
that forgetmenots “are glad to be beautiful and are thinking how 
good it was of God to make them so” (p. 69) is nonsense. This 
kind of thing defeats its object, and mars a pretty and useful little 
book. 
justified, and still more to imagine why ‘tides who can He 
trate such gin should claim for themselves the title of 
“Municipal Reform 
