THE YEAR-BOOK OF SCIENCE. 125 
‘‘ Biology” is divided into ‘‘ Animal ”’ and ‘ Botanical’’; and 
while our remarks apply almost exclusively to the latter section, we 
cannot but wonder in which division such a book as Darwin’s 
Origin of Species, or Weismann’s Essays upon Heredity, would have 
been classed. Books and papers do “still appear on general bio- 
logical principles, and a section should have been set apart for 
their reception; Prof. Romanes’ Darwin and after Darwin, reviews 
of which appeared in this Journal and elsewhere, might then 
have been mentioned; and Karl Pearson’s Grammar of geoneny 
though of = not purely biological, might be recorded s 
where in the book. A similar Par oe will “apply to the Botanical 
section. U ee af prec ” heading would fall text-books, surely 
sometimes worthy of record, as, fee instance, anes © stimable 
Lirik, the gb volume of which appeared last yea 
ere are four divisions :—Systematic and Gecarasisienl Botany, — 
by W. B. Hemsley; Morphology and Biology, by G. Massee; Minute 
H siol . E. Weiss. Hac 
A cott; and Phy , by h 
division is subdivided, and in the first three the subdivisions are 
agai In *‘ Minute Anatomy ” the arrangement is rational 
enough; of the two subdivisions, Histology and Anatomy, the 
second includes the two headings, General and Special; but Messrs. 
Hemsley and Massee are not happy in their grouping. The 
Systematic and Geographical division contains the f ollowing sub- 
divisions, all, at any rate typographically, of the same value :— 
Nomenclature, Descriptive, The British Flora, The Asiatic Flora, 
New Chinese and Japanese Plants, Australian and Polynesian 
Flora, The African ec, The American Flora, Geographical, 
Orchids, Figures of Plants, Miscellaneous, and—the Kew Bulletin 
of Miscellaneous Informatio ro e es of text 
under Descriptive, it is vidently a large subdivision includin 
the following ‘“ Floras,”’ and comparable in importance with 
Geography, Orchids, or the Kew Bulletin. ‘* Miscellaneous” con- 
sists chiefly of monographs or revisions of Orders, and is ve 
incomplete; no mention is made of the several parts of Engler and 
Prantl’s valuable and well-known alors enfamilien, or the two 
parts of Baillon’s Histoire des Plant We reca , too, a classifi- 
cation of Solanaceea suggested by Wettstein, and Tepor orted in the 
Centralblatt, but omitted here. Of course, in so small a volume we 
portance. Mr. Hemsley places “* Nomenclature ” first, “ beca 
there has been unusual activity in this direction.” Unfortunately, 
instead of giving the rules proposed by the Berlin —— 
writes a summary of the points at issue as these appear to him, 
and seems to approve of those who “ would continue to use names 
that have long been current, regardless of the law of petority, 
i 0 1). 
promise, but it would be interesting if Mr. Hemsley had given the 
date from which “recent work” may be supposed to start and 
