148 The American Naturalist. [February, 



doubted. To do this thoroughly, implied a revision of all the genera 

 and he proceeded at once to examine the original sources and make a 

 revision de novo instead of contenting himself with leaning upon the 

 work of other.<. What ever may be thought of the result, in this case 

 the motive can hardly be impeached. And it must be said, however 

 radical his views on nomenclature seem, that in all other respects he is 

 in the main very conservative. He repeatedly expresses his approval 

 of Bentham and Hooker's limitations of genera and condemns severely 

 triplication of genera or species. 



He bases his revision upon the rules of the Congress at Paris in 

 1867, giving them a strict construction in order to prevent any doubt. 

 He shows that these rules have not been followed in practice, but that 

 there is no alternative between them and chaos in nomenclature. 

 Some confusion has arisen also from defects in these rules — or as he 

 expresses it, he found " leaks " in them. These leaks he has attempted 

 to repair by framing additions and amendments to the rules. He 

 made a thorough and complete revision of all the genera of Phanero- 

 gams and Pteridophytes and of many genera of Bryophytes, Fungi and 

 Algae which came to his notice in revising the nomenclature of the 

 Phanerogams — as he was forced to examine everywhere to be sure 

 that the names he adopted were not in prior use elsewhere. There is 

 no complete unity in the work, for, besides the revision of nomencla- 

 ture, in a few cases he has made a revision of the contents of a genus, 

 or a monograph of the genus or some part of it, perhaps extending 

 even to forms of a species. There is also a list of plants collected on 

 his tour, dovetailed into the revision. The book seems to be a compila- 

 tion of the work he did upon his collection or which he was drawn 

 into in the progress of that work. It would take a critic almost as 

 long to verify the work as it did the author to do it, and I wish it 

 understood that the statements hereinafter made are on the authority 

 of the work itself unless otherwise indicated. 



The book opens with a long and somewhat rambling preface in 

 which the. author describes the circumstances which led him into the 

 work. He then takes up the vital question of the necessity of 

 such a revision and gives three principal causes of the alterations he 

 has made. The first arises from matters of form as prescribed by the 

 international rules. Some of these he has formulated more strictly and 

 " completed in order to abate the multitude of variations and to bring 

 controverted cases to an easy decision." " Many persons," he add-, 

 " will recognize for the first time out of the mass of alterations the 

 difficulties which inconsistencies in this respect may produce and the 



