which is the same as R. indica also; R.indica L. with a de- 
scription copied: from) Willdenow,. and chiefly belonging to 
R. microcarpa Lindl.; R..reclinata of Thory; R. longifolia 
of Willd. another variety of R. indica; R. Noisettiana of 
Thory, the Rose Noisette of our collections, a garden seed- 
ling of Rosa moschata, which species is placed by M. Trat- 
tinnick, in his series 10!; R. Lawranceana Lindl. charged 
to R. Laurentie!; and some other garden China’ Roses 
taken up by the author from Thory. 
In introducing this singular work to the notice of rea- 
ders in this country, we do so rather for the purpose of ex- 
pressing our opinion upon its merits, than with a view 
to recommending it to attention. Indeed, it is difficult 
to understand either the objects of the author in publish- — 
ing the work, or the plan he has followed in its execu- 
tion. If it be intended as a collection of all the Roses 
which have been published as species or varieties, by bota- 
nists or gardeners, it is materially defective; many such 
having been entirely omitted. If, as a convenient artificial 
arrangement of the genus, theauthor’s object is far from 
being attained, because the characters assigned to the sec- 
tions are insufficient to distinguish one section from an- 
other. It can scarcely be offered as a natural arrangement, 
plants. being placed together, which have no other affi- 
nity than species of the same natural genus must necessarily 
possess in common. Nor can it have been prepared ‘as a 
book of ready reference, the work having ‘been published 
with neither indexes! nor even pages!; so that, in whatever 
manner it is considered, it is so incomplete or inaccurate, or 
paradoxical, as to be a mere anomaly in science, and as- 
_ Suredly undeserving of attention. 2 
_ We have been.tempted to take this notice of M. Trat-- 
tinnick’s work, not only by the overweening pretensions 
with which it has set out, and the corresponding failure by 
which it has been accompanied; but also for the sake of. 
giving our support to Dr. Steudel’s very conclusive remarks 
upon this work, published in the second volume of the 
Transactions of the Botanical Society of Ratisbon, to 
which M. Trattinnick has since published as unsatisfactory 
a reply. 
J. L. 
