﻿US 



This is a seriously imperfect citation; it should stand " G. sp. 

 n. 8, Oliv. Fl. Trop. Africa, v. 1, p. 167," where Oliver describes 

 the species without giving it a specific name. By Vesque's citation 

 it is not possible to fix down the species meant without a visit to 

 the Kew Herbarium. The condensed citation of Pierre may 

 possibly help ; but the truth is I have been unable to find where 

 Pierre does take up this species ; his monograph is a full one, and 

 as Vesque cites no page it is easy to overlook Pierre's reference to 

 G. lucida. 



These are not one or two imperfections, the only ones dis- 

 coverable in 602 pages. It is evident that M. Vesque grudges every 

 moment spent on bookwork ; he sometimes does cite the page and 

 tab. of Pierre, as on Vesque, p. 363, where, however, he first mis- 

 quotes " G. Keeniana" in place of Pierre's " G. Keenaniana," and 

 in the next line spells our Cachar friend's name "Keenann.' Of all 

 the numerous spelling slips in the book, one of the most curious is 

 " Sanvalle's Fl. Cuba," which occurs more than once ; I thought 

 Sauvalle was a French name ; one is not surprised to see English 

 names assume unusual forms under French treatment. The 

 literature of Guttiferse is exceedingly small, but Vesque makes no 

 effort to attain a moderate uniformity ; he cites (usually) the page 

 of his own book, but on p. 385 merely 41 Vesque, Epharm." A still 

 greater irregularity occurs, throughout the book, in the use of the 

 sign of admiration (!) ; this is appended to certain (only a few) 

 collectors' numbers seen. Vesque has, from internal evidence, seen 

 at least ten times as many collectors' numbers cited to which no mark 

 of admiration is put. 1 cannot imagine, if the collector's number 

 has been seen, what difference there is between a number "admired" 

 and one " not admired " ; unless possibly the admired number was 

 the one taken for type or for anatomy. This opens up a question of 

 real importance ; in order to form an estimate of the value of the 

 anatomical descriptions which occupy so much space, we should 

 like to know when they are drawn from the examination of a single 

 specimen, and when from the examination of a series of specimens, 

 from different localities, collected at different seasons of the year, 

 and produced under different circumstances of moisture and shade. 



To sum up the form of the Guttiferae : it appears clear that 

 M. Vesque cares nothing for the refinements of literary botany. 

 We cannot hope now for a botanist who is "all-round" up to date ; 

 if he does the "literature" and the "geography" with finish, it 

 can hardly be hoped of him that he will do the anatomy at all. 



Turning from form to substance, I next tried Vesque's Guttiferaa 

 with various Indian bundles in the Kew Herbarium,— with agree- 

 able surprise. The descriptions are very good; they are both 

 faithful and easy to understand (I am for the present not speaking 

 of the anatomy of the leaf) ; the geography, though it looks very 

 scanty, appears to be really all we have yet got (or very nearly so 

 indeed). The book possesses many merits ; setting aside for the 

 present the leaf-anatomy as mere surplusage, the monograph, from 

 the manner in which it closely sticks to good predecessors, and the 

 honesty of the descriptions, will be found (I am confident) much 



