PRODROMUS FLORE BRITANNICE 229 
Exchange Club, and presumably do not receive the Reports of 
that Club, would be deprived of some very interesting notes.— 
G. Goopz, Hon. Sec oWa BEB. 0, 
REVIEWS. 
Prodromus Flore Britannice. By Freperic N. Wiuutams. Part 5. 
. 207-258. reer C. Stutter. March, 1909. Price 
2s. 8d., post fre 
AFTER an aval of more than five years, the author con- 
tinues his account of the species native or established within the 
limits of the British Isles. In this instalment fifty-nine species 
under twenty-eight genera, belonging to nine families, occupy 
fifty-two pages; the seven families, Adoxacee, Caprifoliacee, 
but probably without much surprise, that the little Moschatel is 
considered to constitute an independent family. Such an opinion 
een in recent years adopted by many German and other 
bstantiats. The floral structure comes nearest to the caprifoliaceous 
type, but, as explained by Hichler, “The absence of a true calyx, 
the false duplication of the andreecium, ete the character of the 
inflorescence, are of heterotypic significanc 
The only other important apenas ‘chan nge made in the 
the learned and munificent botanist, SEs Sherard, of Oxford, 
on whom the title of prince and Mecenas of bot any has been 
bestowed, will, however, still 3 remain ascites with the lak 
for Hock called it Asperwla Sherardi, and this name is adopted by 
x Hs epeth 
Of nomenclature the author states that he “ prefers to cH 
little, as ery Seal s but little on the scientific study of plants” ; 
eless t i 
Caruel -has rightly followed the best soa es in keeping up 
Tournefort’s genus Pervinca, which is almost similar in form to 
the English name of ‘ periwinkle.’ As Caruel ave. ae a a 
son, Scopoli, Allioni, Monch, and Dumortier, of w ad 
sounder and more scientific views of genera than had Piece 
JOURNAL OF Borany.—Vou, 47. [JunE, 1909.] T 
