BOOK-NOTES, NEWS, ETC. Dif 



much influenced by the vie^YS of relationships put forward by 

 Dr. HaUier. In his treatment of the second great group of seed- 

 plants, he starts from the Polycarpicce, — Hallier's Proterogenes — 

 which includes the following families : Anonales, Pii^eriiK^, Banales, 

 Nepenthales, Aristolochiales, Ehoeadince, and Hamamelince. But 

 while practically accepting Hallier's definition and views of rela- 

 tionship of these families, Dr. Lotsy breaks into the series by 

 deriving from two different portions of it the great group of the 

 Monocotyledons. 



Incidentally he discusses the origin of Monocotyledons, and 

 while fully agreeing with Miss Sargant in deriving them from 

 dicotyledonous ancestors, he cannot admit that all Monocotyledons 

 are syncotylous. Heterocotyly must also be considered, and in 

 this respect, for instance, he regards the GraminecB as retaining a 

 trace of the second cotyledon in the epiblast. In a word, the 

 Monocotyledons are not monophyletic, but have been derived by at 

 least two paths of descent from the Dicotyledons. Hence, in Dr. 

 Lotsy's arrangement, the spadicifloral Monocotyledons follow the 

 Piperales, while the rest of the group finds its place immediately 

 after the Kanales. In the arrangement of the second and larger 

 phylum he follows Wettstein, and begins with the Helobiece, of 

 which. Alismacece is regarded as the most primitive order ; next 

 come the LiliiflorcE, in which the type reaches its strongest deve- 

 lopment, and from which extreme adaptation to insect pollination 

 has led to the development of the ScitaminecB and Gynandrce, and 

 extreme adaptation to wind-pollination to the development of the 

 GhimiflorcB. A departure from Wettstein's arrangement is the 

 derivation of Enantiohlastm from HelobicB and not from LiliiflorcB. 



It must not, however, be supposed that, in starting with the 

 PolycarpiccB, Dr. Lotsy is convinced of the superior antiquity of 

 this series as compared with the MonoclilamydecB. The question 

 is broached in his introductory chapters on the angiospermous 

 flower, but is left unanswered. Dr. Lotsy returns to it in the last 

 chapter after a discussion on the definition and constitution of the 

 Hamamelince, and on Casuarina and Juliana. But he can arrive 

 at no decision. Facts are wanting to decide between the two 

 opposing views, each of which embraces alternatives. Is the 

 angiosperm flower a strobilus and derived from a unisexual Cycad 

 flower, or from an hermaphrodite strobilus like that of Bennett ites'} 

 Or is it an inflorescence, and to be derived from Bennettites 

 (supposing, with Lignier, the Bennettites fructification to be an 

 inflorescence), or, as Wettstein has suggested, from Epliedra-WkQ 

 ancestors ? The author can only reply, "Ich weiss es nicht." 



A. B. E. 



BOOK-NOTES, NEWS, dx. 



The announcement in April last of the death of Charles Du 

 Bois Larbalestier, at St. Helier's, Jersey, must have come to 

 many like an echo of far-away days. He was one of a group of 

 keen field botanists who, between forty and fifty years ago, devoted 



