176 . General Notes. [ March, 
Flora, 1875, No. 29. Dr. J. Müller gives, in the form of an analytical 
key, some account of new Brazilian Rubiacee. (This is continued in 
No. 30.) Dr. Leopold Dippel replies, with great asperity, to a recent 
communication by Dr. Sanio respecting the nature of the cell-wall in 
cambium. No. 31. Dr. Lad. Celakovsky, On the Intercalated Epipetal- 
ous Circle of Stamens (continued in No. 32, not yet finished). On the 
Genesis of Coloring Matters in Plants, by Dr. Carl Kraus, of Triesdorff 
(treating of the relations of chromogen to the colors of flowers, ete.). 
No. 33. Lindberg’s new classification of the fifty-nine genera of Eu- 
ropean Hepatice is reprinted from a memoir in Acta Societatis Scientiarum 
Fenniæ X. President’s Clark’s lecture On the Circulation of Sap in 
Plants, 1874, is criticised at some length. The reviewer is discriminating, 
and points out some possible errors of interpretation, but appears to have 
thoroughly appreciated the wide range of experiments, and the energy 
with which the work was done. 
Botanische Zeitung, No. 52. On the Development of Cambium, by 
Dr. W. Velten (examining Prof. N. J. C. Miiller’s views in regard to 
the development of Cambium). Reports of Societies: Berlin: Brefeld 
on Development of Certain Fungi. This number contains an interesting 
obituary notice of Dr. Bartling, author of Ordines Naturales Planta- 
rum (1830), and professor at Göttingen. Dr. Bartling was born at 
Hanover, December 9, 1798, and died November 19, 1875. Ne d 
(January 7, 1876). On the Influence of Light on the Color of Flowers, 
by E. Askenasy. (This account of experiments is not yet finished.) A 
few notices of plants. by Ascheron. Professor Pfeffer criticises with the 
greatest severity, in a book-notice, the recent paper on vegetable move- 
ments, by E. Heckel, of Montpellier. He insists that Heckel has not 
observed ordinary caution in his work, and his results are wholly un- 
trustworthy. , A notice of the paper and the review will be soon given 
in a general note. 
ZOOLOGY. 
Bartramian Names AGAIN: An Expranation.—In Dr. Coues’s 
reply to my critique upon his article on Bartram’s ornithological names 
he seems to have misunderstood my admissions, inasmuch as he says 1 
have yielded the very point I wished to refute. The point at issue is 
not whether “ Bartram’s identifiable, described, and binomially nam 
species” are entitled to recognition, for no one would be foolish enough 
to deny that. The few names of this character in Bartram’s long list, 
or the “five or six” among the twenty (not ten) Dr. Coues claims as 
Bartramian in origin, I have of course freely admitted. But I do not 
see how excluding about three fourths of the names claimed by Dr: 
Coues as properly originating with Bartram is admitting the main point 
at issue, which is the recognition of species not identifiably described. - 
The real difference between us is as to what constitutes a description. 
While Dr. Coues considers that such vague references to species 45 
