4 



248 Scientific Intelligence. 



merited oblivion such venerable spooks as the New England 

 Thaspiam aureum. Surely it is not only the privilege but the 

 duty of monographers to pass upon the validity ot old and 

 unsubstantiated reports. 



In the interpretation of species the authors have on the whole 

 been cautious, yet several are launched (e. g., Hydrocotyle aus- 

 tralis and H. caneata) which appear to rest upon fine technical 

 characters unaccompanied by habital differences of moment. 

 While not prepared to challenge the validity of any of these 

 species, we may say that they suggest the artificial category 

 rather than species distinct in nature. Species with the opposite 

 failing, in which distinctions of foliage and habit are unsubstan- 

 tiated by satisfactory or constant differences in flower or fruit, 

 are also found, as, lor instance in the southern Cicuta Curtissii, 

 which would be good enough provided the fruit maintained its 

 orbicular form and never exceeded the assigned 2 mm of length, 

 but unfortunately it is variable in these regards and the northern 

 C. metadata sometimes has suborbicular fruit which falls short 

 of its ascribed length of 4 mm . Similarly, a close scrutiny of the 

 problematic Slum Carsonii Durand would have shown the 

 authors that the supposed technical distinctions are, even in the 

 original Pocono material, not invariably so strong as stated. 

 Indeed, in a considerable suite of specimens it is difficult to draw 

 a satisfactory line between this species and G. cicittwfolium, and 

 it is known that under certain circumstances (changes of water- 

 level) S. cicutcefolinm transforms itself into states simulating so 

 closely S. Carsonii, that, when so wide a variation is permitted to 

 the former, it seems highly artificial to separate the latter upon 

 trifling differences of degree. 



In the successful elucidation of the Alaskan Coelopleurum, 

 Gmelini Ledeb. and separation of the nearly allied C. actosi- 

 folium Coult. and Rose, of our northeastern flora, the authors 

 have rendered a considerable service. 



Genera in the Umbelliferse are apt to appear technical rather 

 than natural and this may be necessary in a group of such uni- 

 form floral structure and gradually varying habit, yet it is ques- 

 tionable whether technical subdivision is not carried too far when 

 such habitally identical plants as Leptocaulis patens and L. 

 divaricatus, with very similar fruit, are placed in separate genera 

 owing to the different number of oil-tubes. The logic of such a 

 course becomes still more doubtful when we see that the not 

 very remote genus Sanicula is permitted to have as many or as 

 few oil-tubes as it likes. 



In several places the authors commit the common error of 

 describing thick bodies, like the fruit of Sanicula, with such terms 

 (of two dimensions) as orbicidar, elliptical, or oval, instead of 

 globose, ovoid, etc. b. l. r. 



2. Foundations of Botany ; by Joseph Y. Bergen. 8vo. 

 Pp. xii, 669. Boston, 1901 (Ginn & Co.).— Under the above title 

 Mr. Bergen has just issued what is virtually a revised edition of 



