90 REPORT OF THE CONIFER CONFERENCE, 
would have settled the matter. Dr. Syme’s herbarium, although, 
by Mr. Hanbury’s courtesy, always accessible to botanists, has, we 
believe, not once been consulted by Mr. Brown. 
t is not only with regard to plants which have exercised the 
t 
lised,” and a parently not worth a description; while of Selinwn 
Carvifolia, the write says —and the sente is e 
of his style :— «The t discovery (in 1880) of this plant in 
may have been mistaken for Peucedanum palustre ; still, had this 
h 
urnal will remember that Mr. F. A. Lees dealt with the 
an undertaking on which he has expended a great deal of time and 
trouble, but for which he is manifestly unsuited. Mr, Arthur 
Bennett, on the other hand, stands in the first rank of critical 
ri anists ; 
which h 
expresses his opinions lend additional weight to his conclusions, 
and his continuation of this work will be looked for with very great 
interest. € trust that he will not waste time and space over 
trivial questions of nomenclature, the consideration of which is 
entirely out of place in a Supplement to English Botany. 
Report of the Conifer Conference held at the Chiswick Gardens, October, 
1891. (Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society, xiv.) 
London: 117, Victoria St. 1892. 8vo, pp. 558. Price 15s. 6d. 
_ Ovr informa 
timber for profit, as well as our knowledge of its life-history and 
conditions in health and disease, comes to us almost entirely from 
the Contin i 
increasing the general inte 
* See Journ. Bot., 1882, 139, 284; Report Bot. Record Club, 1881-2, p. 216, 
