19to] CURRENT LITERATURE 467 
from the paleobotanical limbo only within the decade, is given full consideration 
from every standpoint, and the account is made clearer for the general reader 
by an admirable summary of the general principles of fern anatomy. Next 
follow the Bennettitales, a group which American science has done so much 
to rescue from oblivion. In this as in the preceding chapter the authors have 
illustrated their account with good figures from original sources, and here we 
find the work of WreELAND, WILLIAMSON, and Natuorst freely drawn upon, just 
as Scott, OLIVER, KipsTon, and Poronté furnish the figures for the first chap- 
fili 
The treatment of the Cycadales is particularly full, as might be expected, 
in view of the special interest of the Chicago lntnwatorion4 in the group. The 
Mustrations ConIpEise not ony the eo but also the anatomy, 
y dealt with in instance than in the case of any 
of the other gymnosperms. This chapter iit rank as perhaps the best in the 
volume. The Ginkgoales occupy about 35 pages. An interesting illustration 
here is a tone print of the identical tree from the botanic garden of the Univer- 
sity of Tokyo, in the seeds of which HrraAs& made the surprising discovery of 
spermatozoids. 
The Coniferales naturally receive more attention than any of the older 
gymnosperms, since they are the prevailing naked-seeded plants of our epoch, 
and moreover are the exclusive representatives of the phylum in temperate 
climates. In the 140 odd pages devoted to the Coniferales, the authors discuss 
the order under the appelations customary in systematic accounts. It seems 
desirable as soon as possible to get rid of the inapposite and cumbersome appela- 
tions Pinaceae and Taxaceae, inherited from the prensptean: side, and replace 
them by other terms more in accordance with y lines in the Conifer-_ 
ales. Perhaps the time is not yet entirely ripe for that to be done. Although 
the conventional bifurcation of the Coniferales is adopted, the authors do not 
fail to discuss the hypothesis recently put forward by SEWARD, PENHALLOW, 
and the reviewer as to more appropriate groupings. It is recognized that the 
araucarian conifers stand in a group by themselves as compared with the Abie- 
rineae and pinoid conifers may have had an altogether separate origin from the 
Cordaitales. Nothing can apparently be clearer than that the earliest remains 
which can be referred either to araucarineous or abietineous affinities, have all 
the characteristics of conifers. The treatment of the coniferous series is par- 
ticularly worthy of praise for its thoroughness and many-sidedness. The bane 
of morphology in the past has been the setting up of evolutionary hypotheses 
based on the consideration of facts of a single kind. This error has certainly 
been avoided here. The ace: habit, the spore prodncing members, the 
vascular anatomy, tl , and the history or paleonto- 
logical record of the group have all been considered. The result is one which, 
