REVIEWS. 
189 
safely affirm that none of tlie works which succeeded that of the Professor 
at Jena is in any respect to he compared with it. So likewise as to structure, 
if we except the more recent inquiries of Mr. Arthur Gris, M. Chatin, M. 
Bomet, and a few others, little has been added to the knowledge acquired 
ten years ago. It may he gathered, therefore, that the preparation of a 
general work on hotany is attended with no yery insurmountable difficulties. 
Hence, as might he expected, M. Figuier’s present work is by no means as 
inaccurate as most popular hooks on scientific subjects. 
M. Figuier has divided his task into four portions : The organography 
and physiology of plants ; the classification of plants ; the natural families of 
plants; and geographical distribution. The division is a good one, but is not 
novel. Under these four heads M. Figuier discusses the natural history of 
plants ; and, by the aid of illustrations — of which it is faint praise to say 
that they are admirably conceived and executed — and in a terse clear style, 
he certainly does much towards the “popularization” of botany. We 
cannot say, however, that the four divisions are equal in point of treatment. 
Clearly, the first, which is devoted to the structure and physiology of plants, 
ranks first also in order of merit. The portion in which the classification of 
plants, and the arrangement into families is given stand next, and the chapter 
on distribution is judiciously placed last for more reasons than one. If we 
have any fault to find with the classification, it is that in some portions it 
is more detailed than is necessary. The arrangement of the natural families 
it is impossible to complain much of, for the writings of Lindley have not 
been spared in this part of the compilation. The geographical portion of the 
subject, however, we must and do protest against; it contains no reference 
to important inquiries which have thrown real light on the question of 
geographical distribution. Indeed its scientific qualities may be represented 
by the word nihil. There is a great deal said about “ the rich and varied 
vegetation of Asia,” and so forth ; but, on the whole, this part of the book is 
a poor reproduction of the old (l physical geography” of our schools — a 
science which contains not a single generalization, and is full of questionable 
facts. In describing the organs of plants, M. Figuier has fallen into very few 
mistakes, but he has been guilty of some omissions, which the botanical 
reader must instantly notice, but which are of little importance to the amateur. 
There is only one other matter concerning the author, to which we must 
call attention. That is his tendency to become hyper-popular in explaining 
certain phenomena. It is one thing to confess one’s ignorance of the nature 
of some organic operations, and quite another to assign them to the limbo 
of a mysterious agency. We do not therefore justify M. Figuier’s position 
in the following assertion : — 
“We must, besides, in order to explain the great phenomenon of the life 
of plants, bring in a force very superior to all these physical actions. This 
is the action of vital force, which God only bestows, and of which He alone 
directs the results.” 
W e are puzzled to know whether these sentences are more remarkable 
for irreverence or bad grammar, but we cannot assent to their science. M. 
Translated by Dr. Lankester, F.R.S. A few copies of this work may still 
be had of Mr. Hardwicke. 
