354 
Review : 
of the primary structure represented in Fig. 556, which has no pith 
at all, but a solid tetrarch primary xylem star. Neither can such a 
root (nor indeed strictly speaking any root) “lose any appearance of 
its primitive radiate structure.” It is only its secondary tissues which 
can “assume the appearance” of those of a dicotyledonous stem. 
On p. 265 the three cells of the egg-apparatus are described as 
“ all potential eggs.” On p. 275 it is said that “ the synergids ... have 
been observed to produce embryos, and since these cells are gameto- 
phytic, these embryos arise by vegetative apogamy (see p. 169).” 
On p. 169 vegetative apogamy is defined as the case of an embryo 
arising “ from the vegetative tissue of the prothallium.” Is this 
implied inclusion of the synergids with the vegetative tissue of 
the prothallium intended ? 
On p. 278 it is said that the Liliales show “ a distinct develop¬ 
ment from hypogyny, as in the amaryllises (Amaryllidacese) to 
epigyny as in the flags (Iridaceae).” For “ amaryllises” we should 
presumably read “ lilies.” 
Many of the foregoing criticisms are, of course, criticisms of 
detail and in some cases of the form of expression, but the book 
sets so high a standard of lucidity and exactness of statement that 
we feel sure the authors will expect an equally rigorous standard of 
criticism. An attempt has been made to limit criticism accord¬ 
ing to the ideals and principles which have guided the authors 
as set forth in the preface; but in writing detailed comment of this 
kind on such a book it is impossible to convey to the reader a 
just idea of the overwhelming preponderance of exposition which 
seems beyond criticism. 
Part I of the book is, in the opinion of the reviewer, by far the 
best elementary account of the “ special morphology ” of the plant 
kingdom, given the limitations deliberately adopted, that has yet 
appeared. A. G. T. 
The remainder of this volume deals with the Physiology of 
Plants and was written by the late Professor Barnes. The writer to 
whom the reviewer’s pen is now transferred would wish that some¬ 
thing of the serene appreciative power of his colleague might still 
remain in that pen ; but of physiology it can still be said, to the 
sorrow of the teacher and the joy of the investigator, that many 
comparatively superficial phenomena are as yet quite uncompre¬ 
hended, and in touch with this ignorance the hand of criticism 
falters, 
