482 Scientific Intelligence. 
x, pp. 115-192, tab. 8-15, imp. 4to. The results of a prolonged 
study of an important group, by a botanist of great experience 
and ability, is worthy of particular attention. As the veteran an- 
thor states it :— 
“My principal object is here to call the attention of botanists 
to certain characters which have been neglected in systematic 
a good method. Indeed, when a special organization is common 
toa large number of different plants, it is evident that compara- 
tively slight but constant modifications of this structure ought to be 
particularly attended to; and this proposition seems to be especially 
true of the Pumacew.” M. Decaisne puts foremost his strongest 
point when he declares of the Quince, that “the nature of its bark 
and wood, its prefoliation, inflorescence, the stivation of the co- 
rolla, the structure of the ovary and of the fruit differ essentially 
from that of the Pears, among which certain botanists still class it. 
Rather than combine the Quince and the Japan Quince with Py- 
rus, we are confident that botanists will generally accept his Do- 
: d . 
caisne has turned to account, that of the deformation of one of 
; last Ly 
; it is to be observed that M. diversifolia is held 
_ to be distinct from M. rivwlaris ; and. that a subgenus, Chioro- 
d for M. angustifolia, our narrow-leaved Crab-Ap- 
separated from M. coronari ( 
_ stated of its reddish anthers and the structure of the disk. Pyr 
x isthus brought down to the Pear; and this, as Decaisne 
formerly announced, to a single collective species, of s1x FeO 
forms. We continue to write Pyrus from 0! 
d custom, not doubting, however, that Pirus is the cof 
