1884. ] Botany. i 187 
All the way through the author has introduced drawings from 
specimens of her own preparations, and these, with those copied 
from Sachs, Carpenter, Darwin and other sources, bring the num- 
ber of illustrations up to eighty-five. Some of these are quite 
good, while others, we are sorry to say, are sadly deficient in that 
very desirable quality—accuracy.. 
Now this book is one from which, as a text,*two separate ser- 
mons might be preached. From one standpoint it is to be com- 
mended, while from another it must be severely criticised. It is 
commendable in that the author has wrought into it so much of 
er own observation and work; it is to be criticised in that there 
arẹ so many grievous errors which mar what would otherwise 
have been a delightful little book. We are sorry to have to say 
it, but there is not a chapter which does not contain erroneous 
statements. Weare allthe more sorry to have to say this, because of 
the evident good faith and -desire on the part of the author to 
represent the several subjects treated of as they are understood 
y modern botanists. Had the manuscript (and some of the 
drawings) been submitted to some one more familiar with the sub- 
ject, many of the errors might have easily been eliminated. For 
example, on page 73 we read “ Mildew, which is so destructive 
to cotton and linen fabrics, etc., etc.,” and we are then referred to 
1g. 20 A.” Upon turning to the figure we find a poorly copied 
drawing of wheat rust (Puccinia)! The blunder, for such it is, 
comes from the fact that in England wheat rust is called mildew, 
ut our author ought to have known that what she referred to is 
A very different thing. On page 133 we have an illustration of 
ie truth Of the adage “that a little knowledge is a danger- 
pis ‘ec Here we read that “lateral shoots, vegetable hairs, 
- caves are exogenous, or proceed from a layer of growing cells 
Just underneath the bark,” a statement which bears evidence of 
tes misunderstanding of the term exogenous in this con- 
ke on. It is needless to cite further examples. _ May we not 
rg that the publishers will authorize an early revision, in which 
errors will be eliminated ? 
ga CENERA PYRENOMYCETUM SCHEMATICE DELINEATA, By P. A. 
rdo, Patavii, Nov. 188 3.—This latest work of the well- 
mycologist of Padua, consists of fourteen lithographic 
the amateur d 
able that in this 
nd the critical student of mycology. It is notice- 
is new arrangement, the name Sphæria, under which 
