278 Scientific Intelligence. 



tion of personal specific names. In the Introduction it is recom- 

 mended that such names he pronounced as nearly as possible as 

 the men referred to would have pronounced them. In this way 

 not only is a great deal of historic interest maintained, but there 

 is the avoidance of many practically impossible Latin syllables. 



The names adopted in this work are, as was expected, largely 

 those of the so-called Botanical Club Check List, though in a 

 number of cases other names, for some reason, have been substi- 

 tuted. This is not the place to discuss the nomenclature ques- 

 tion — it would become too extensive a subject were one to take 

 up its various phases. A recent paper* has shown very conclu- 

 sively that the principles upon which the Check List is based arc 

 inconsistent, and consequently we can but regret that Buch 

 names as will be only short-lived and which add confusion to the 

 tangle of synonymy have been used in this work. 



The English names, too, have received a great deal of atten- 

 tion, but unfortunately the authors seem to have lost sight of 

 their true value and place. To many people it seems that if 

 English names are to be given for the plants, they should be such 

 as are actually used in colloquial speech by people who do not 

 use the scientific appellations. Non-botanical people know only a 

 comparatively limited number of plants — the commonest or most 

 conspicuous or useful species — and for those they have their own 

 names, sometimes imported from Europe, sometimes suggested by 

 some characteristic of the plant, or often apparently a mere ran- 

 dom name which has become fixed. Such names for a few 

 species are numerous and often very different, and it is no simple 

 matter to determine which are in most general use, but it is only 

 such which should be used as colloquial names for plants. In a 

 number of cases these standard names for showy plants are given, 

 but in case of groups too inconspicuous or too difficult of separa- 

 tion for non-botanical folk to notice, the authors have manufactured 

 a series of very uncolloquial designations — generally translations 

 of the Latin names. Much time and thought must have been 

 expended to accomplish what seems, unfortunately, a thankless 

 task. Who that cannot say Scleria reticularis will ever say 

 "Reticulated Nut-rush," or if he cannot say Aster multiformis 

 will he be likely to speak of the " Various-leaved Aster " ? 



It is indeed a surprise in a work so ready to take up modern 

 ideas to find the metric system of measurements quite ignored in 

 the first volume. In the second volume, however, published after 

 a number of adverse criticisms, the metric equivalents of the 

 English units are given in a note, but the measurements are all 

 given in the old standard feet, inches and lines. 



It is not in these somewhat superficial matters alone, however, 

 that a manual of systematic botany should be judged. Its worth 

 as a working guide can be told only by use and by an examination 

 of the descriptions, keys, ranges, specific limits, and, in this case, 

 the illustrations. Reference has already been made to the neat- 



*B. L. Robiusou, Bot. Gaz., xxv, 437. 



