THE PRIMROSE AND DARWINISM 297 
in DC. Prod., he failed to realize his mistake of having cited the 
Christian name only in his earlier work, and by some slip of the 
pen or printer’s error the name was altered to ‘‘ Fries.’”. From the 
foregoing it will be inferred that the true citation should run 
eee gona Rottb. in Kiéb. Skr. Selsk. x. (1770) 486.”— 
B. Daypon Jac 
An oats Hyon 1p.—In Journ. Bot. 1899, 360, there is a notice 
Habenaria conopsea Benth., found near Sevenoaks. In eh herbarium 
I have a specimen under label ‘‘ Bangor, Wales, July, 1888, W. H. 
Painter,” which is intermediate between these two species, and 
seems to me to be an undoubted case of the hybrid: type O. macu- 
lata accompanies it. "This is from Carnarvon, v.-c. 60. In the 
spring Mr. Wm. Whitwell sent me his series of O. maculata, ae 
me to separate out my subsp. ericetorum; and among them was a 
specimen from near Oswestry, Salop, v.-c. 40, which I ve no 
8 : 
Since orchids, as I am given to understand, can easily ro crossed 
in cultivation, it is not surprising that hybrids in this order (even 
Pall een species of different genera) should occur in nature,—H. F, 
INTON 
NOTICES OF BOOKS. 
The Primrose and Darwinism. By a Field Naturalist, M.A. Camb. 
8vo, pp. 233, eg! * figures in the text. London: Grant 
Richards. Pric 
AFTER reading es ms part of the book, we close it with a 
sigh of relief—* Field Naturalist” is not convincing. By patient 
as compared with self-fertilization were £00 far-r eachin 
0 
peas criticizes the observations, the methods of experiment, and 
the conclusions of Darwin, as set forth in ~ books dealing with 
cross- and self- fertilization and forms of flower, 
he chief point of criticism seems to be the ae ao 
en 
Writer, are Lage aa igang ie under unnatural con- 
