Reviews. 
I 3 I 
aim is “ to give the student who has some acquaintance with the 
rudiments of botany a systematic account of the Flowering plants,” 
the present volume dealing with Gymnospcrms and Monocotyledons. 
As is indicated in the preface, the view that the Gymnospcrms 
and Angiosperms are really parallel expressions of successful 
adoption of the seed-habit (which we now have reason to believe 
was at one time widely spread among the Ptcridophytes) has of late 
years become very widely held; and there now seems very little 
reason why the Gymnospcrms and Angiosperms should he treated 
side by side in one work. 
We suppose the discovery of the “ Pteridosperms ” is too recent 
for any account of them to appear in a work which has evidently 
been in course of elaboration for some time, but it is a pity that the 
allusion in the preface should be practically contradicted by the 
categorical statement at the head of Chap. II. on “ Spermatophytes ” 
(p. 32): “ The Flowering Plants are characterised bythe fo rmation 
of a seed , a structure not found in the remaining groups, known 
collectively as Cryptogams.” 
There is an excellent “ Historical Introduction ” in which the 
gradual development of the natural system of classification is 
traced and the different features characterising the various schemes 
clearly pointed out. We should, however, have been glad of a 
statement and criticism of Bessey’s suggested system (Bot. Gazette, 
Vol. 24, 1897) and also a fuller account of the relation of Eichler’s 
and Engler’s systems to previous ones. 
The systematic part of the book is ably and clearly written, 
and will be most useful to students. It may be doubted whether 
the rather full details of ovule-pollen and embryo-development are 
quite in place in a work devoted to classification rather than 
morphology, especially since they have recently received even fuller 
treatment at the hands of Messrs. Coulter and Chamberlain ; and 
we should have welcomed instead a discussion and illustration of 
the principles of classification, a subject far too much neglected in 
current text-books. 
The relation of the Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons is left 
with the remark that “ it is at present impossible to say what is the 
actual degree of relationship between them.” This is no doubt true, 
but Dr. Rendle’s discussion of this vexed question would have been 
interesting and valuable, as is his “General Review” of the 
Monocotyledons, in which we have an able sketch of the characters 
qnd probable relationships of the different “ series ” or cohorts, 
