« PreviousContinue »
excellent figure of a species of Antipathes, in his extends the list of the Challenger collection by three new * Prodomus fasciculi rariorum plantarum anno 1679 in species of the genus Siphonogorgia, three Muriceidæ, an Hortis celeberrimis Hollandiæ, etc., observatarum." He Indian representative of the genus Bebryce (which before calls it Ašies maritima, and mentions it as a fossil plant; had been known only from the Mediterranean), and one
of the Plexauridæ." thus beginning his Prodomus with a form which was not a plant, and which certainly never grew in any of the It seems surprising that as a matter of courtesy, quite Dutch gardens. After the bibliography there is a critical apart from other considerations, either the editor of these review of the literature ; it is pleasing to find the author Reports or the author of this supplementary one, could dung justice to Esper's "beautiful work · Die Pflanzen- have brought out this 81st Part of the Challenger Reports, there, and without wishing to enter on any technical without any communication with or participation therein, criticism in a general notice like this, we may mention, by Prof. Wright, to whom the preparation of the Report in reference to a remark that “Esper does not describe of the fixed Alcyonaria was originally committed. Antipathes tricoides, but gives a figure of it," that in the With personal matters the reader has no right to be second volume of his work, p. 150, he tells us that the troubled, but he may well inquire why, when the Report name Antipathes myriophylla should replace the name of itself was published in 1889 as the joint work of two Antipathes cricoides engraved on the plate, and having Reporters, who narrate in their preface how pleasantly * delamarck's 1 copy of the “ Fortsetzungen der Pflan- they worked in unison, there should appear in the same zenthiere " open before us, we may add that nearly all the year this supplementary Report, written by but one of references to Part ii. of this work in Mr. Brook's Report the two, and why he should acknowledge “his great oblishould be to Part i. Part ii. contains only 48 pages, and gations to Dr. Murray for enabling him to describe seven Antipathes virgaia, Esper, is the only species of the new species, under his own name," which had been senus described in it. In justice to Esper it may be also found not by himself, but had been transmitted to him mentioned that he corrects his mistake of describing by his co-reporter as new forms early in 1888. The dates a decorticated gorgonid as A. flabellum (vide " Pflanzenth. of the reception of the manuscript of this supplement forts," ii. Th. p. 33).
prove that it could have been easily added to the The general morphology is next treated of, a general appendix to the Report. outline of the structure of the various genera, more This supplementary Report adds eight, not seven as especially with regard to the forms of the zooids and the stated in the preface as quoted above, to the species number of and relative development of the mesenteries ; collected during the cruise of the Challenger. The tinis is the first detailed outline of the kind yet published "Indian representative of the genus Bebryce" belongs to on the morphology of the group, and it is illustrated by the Muriceidæ ; but the interesting Sarakka crassa, Dan., wiodcuts. The classification and description of the belonging to the Alcyonidæ must be added to the list. Geners and species follow; then notes on the geogra- Seven new species are described and figured, in addition phical and bathymetrical distribution. Four species were to the last mentioned species, and figures are given of taken at depths of between 2000 and 3000 fathoms. Siphonogorgia kollikeri and Telesto trichostemma which
A chapter on the anatomy concludes the Report, but were described in the original Report. To the fourteen ve must content ourselves with quoting only the last pages of the Report is added a list of the Alcyonaria few words of this most valuable contribution :
(Pennatulacea excepted) obtained during the voyage, * The Antipathinæ approach the Cerianthidae more arranged according to the order of the stations at which Josely than the Hexactinia in structure, particularly in the they occurred; this comparatively useless record occupies fcülowing points: the arrangement of the mesenteries ; ten pages, and is followed by a four page account of the the relatively thin mesogla, which is entirely devoid bathymetrical range of the species, which takes no of stellate connective tissue cells; the presence of an account of the record of the ranges as given in the ecodermal muscular layer in the stomodæum and body original Report, which omits references to some of the wall; and the rudimentary condition of the musculature Challenger forms and alludes to a large number of genera of the mesenteries."
not found by the Challenger. This Report extends to 222 pages, and has an atlas of
The six plates have been well drawn by Armbruster of 15 plates.
Berne. The second Report in this volume is by Prof. Th. The third Report and the last of the series is by Prof. Ktoder, M.D. Bern, being a “Supplementary Report on the Ernst Haeckel, on the deep-sea Keratosa. Alcyonaria." We quote the short preface :
It will be remarked that this is not a "supplementary” " After the main Report on the Challenger Alcyonaria Report to the Report on the Keratosa by Dr. Poléjaeff was in the press, several further specimens were found. published in 1884, and it may be mentioned that the These were in part new species, of which however, it was forms herein described appear to be of a very doubtful no longer possible to insert a description in the text. I nature, "several spongiologists (among them some well jam under great obligations to Dr. John Murray, the known authorities) had denied their sponge nature and editor of the Challenger Reports, for allowing me to publish in the form of a supplement an account of these declared that these peculiar objects were either Rhizopods Tiew species with the necessary illustrations. At the same or other Protozoa. Other naturalists on the contrary who lume I have seized the opportunity to insert further illustra- were closely acquainted with the Rhizopods, could not tions of such forms as Dr. Wright and myself had only acknowledge their Rhizopod nature, neither could they been able to describe in the Report, as Telesto tricho- make out the class to which they belonged.” Possibly summu and Siphonogorgia kollikeri. This supplement Prof. Haeckel was even one of these later for he tells us
50 Lamarck has written his name on the title-pages. that "A closer comparative examination of these doubtful
organisms of the deep sea has led me to the conviction likewise includes the fossil forms hitherto described from that they are true sponges, for the most part modified in the same area. The recent and extinct forms are, indeed. a peculiar manner by the symbiosis with a commensal arranged together in a systematic manner, without any organism which is very probably in most cases (if not in difference of type or other indication to distinguish at a all) a Hydropolyp stock."
glance the fauna of the present from that of the past : Four families and eleven genera of these strange forms and it is certainly rather startling, at first sight, to are described, and the species are well illustrated. With find in a fauna of an English Midland county the dor some few of them we may have had a previous acquaint-mouse immediately followed by elephants and thing ance, but these turn up here with quite new faces; for," to ceroses. Now, although we are not on the side of thos avoid further confusion," the author" proposes to employ who regard the sciences of zoology and palæontology as the term Haliphysema for that monothalamous Foramini- separated by a wide gulf, yet we venture to think that in fer in the sense of Mobius, Brady, and most recent this instance the author would have been better advised authors"; while “for the true Physemaria, however," had he given his synopsis of extinct types in a separate which he described in 1876" as Haliphysema primordi- portion of the volume, after having first dealt with the alis, &c., it will be best to adopt the term Prophysema," existing species. Faunas are, indeed, to a very large and he thinks that "it may be that the body-wall (in extent, features of one particular epoch; and when we these Physemaria) is perforated by numerous microsco- have those of two or more distinct epochs mixed up pical pores, and that these were closed temporarily and together, we tend to lose sight of the peculiar features accidentally during the few hours I was examining them; of each one. The ordinary student of the local distribution in this case they are Ammoconidæ,” that is, belong to of existing English mammals will find that the introduction
. the first family of these deep-sea Keratosa.
of a number of extinct types, of which he knows nothing, In the truly extraordinary forms placed in the fourth tends to distract his attention from the observat.083 family of Stannomidæ, containing specimens taken from regarding the local distribution of the living formi depths of between 2425 and 2925 fathoms, we find pre- Fortunately, indeed, this objection does not apply to the sent a fibrillar spongin skeleton, composed of thin, simple birds, in which no extinct forms are recorded. or branched spongin fibrillæ, never anastomosing or re The very natural tendency on the part of the author ticulated and also symbiotic Hydroids. Haeckel thinks
Haeckel thinks to make as much as possible of his subject, probablı that these “fibrillæ” throw some light on the peculiar fila- accounts for the introduction of some groups or species ments met with in the Hircinidæ, and that in both in which might have been better omitted, or, at all events
. stances these fibres are not independent organisms, but passed over with a brief foot-note. Thus, in the first places
. are produced by the sponges, in which they occur, and the introduction of the family Hominida could have been should be regarded, as “monaxial Keratose spicules." very well spared, at all events in the systematic arranse
In concluding this notice of one of the most remark- ment. Then, again, the devoting of nearly two pages iv able of the series of animal forms found during the ex- the order Cetacea seems to be very unnecessary, seer pedition of the Challenger, we feel compelled to protest that the only ground for the introduction of this order against the style of the author's criticisms on Poléjaeff's into the fauna of Leicestershire is that the bones of previously published Reports on the Keratosa. It is very whales are sometimes used as gate-posts, or in mine easy to write that“ the whole systematic work of Poléjaeff instance as an ornament to a carriage-drive! The turns in a large circulus vitrosus," &c., &c., but is it fair author's remark in the latter instance that he records or just for one Reporter to thus, at the expense of Her “these, lest, in the event of their getting loose and berg Majesty's Treasury, write of a fellow Reporter? Such subsequently dug up, they should be mistaken for bone: sentences must have been overlooked by the editor. of an extinct elephant," reads as though intended for
This Report extends to ninety-two pages, and is accom- a caustic sarcasm against palæontologists. As another panied by an atlas of eight coloured plates.
instance, we may mention the case of the avocet (p. ijo. introduced on the ground that a gentleman fishing
the junction of the Soar with the Trent, at the extreme THE VERTEBRATES OF LEICESTERSHIRE northern limit of West Leicestershire,saw what he believed AND RUTLAND.
to be an example of this bird flying overhead. The The Vertebrate Animals of Leicestershire and Rutland, inclusion of species on this account would almost jusuf
By Montagu Browne. Pp. 223, illustrated. (Birming- passengers passing through a town by railway being ham and Leicester, 1889.)
entered among the list of visitors thereto.
The same natural tendency to make the most of tèt S we are informed in the preface, the volume before AS
us is the first complete work treating of the verte- subject will probably account for the introduction brate fauna of the two counties mentioned in the title, sub-ordinal and sectional names (eg. Carnivora Verse which has hitherto appeared, although scattered notes Æluroidea, Arctoidea, &c.) which are of no possible and a few lists have been published by several writers. importance in a work of this nature, and are really un The author, who, from his position as Curator of the incumbrance. Town Museum at Leicester, has exceptional opportunities The author tells us he has followed the latest descrip for a work of this nature, can certainly claim that the tions throughout his work, and we see that in several result of his labours does not err on the side of incom- instances he is even in advance of many writers in regni pleteness. Thus this volume is not only a record of all to the adoption of early names on the ground of priority. the existing species of vertebrates which have been Thus the name Microtus is employed for the voles, 15 observed within the limits of the counties in question, but | lieu of the well-known Arvicola; but in this particule
Instance it would surely have been well for the author to to extinct families, which follow the recent ones. Mr. have departed from his rule and introduced the latter Browne follows Prof. Cope in abolishing the orders term as a synonym. A still more glaring instance of the Teleostei and Ganoidei, and arranging the representatives inadvisability of dropping all mention of synonyms of the former and the typical groups of the latter in a occurs in treating of the lesser shrew (p. 13), for which sub-class Teleostomi, which is ranked as equivalent to the name Sorex minutus, Linn., is adopted, in place of the Elasmobranchii. The Salmonide are thus imme. the later S. pygmæns, Pall. Now, the author refers to diately followed by a family which the author, in defiance Bell's “ British Quadrupeds " for the distinctive characters of all grammatical rules, terms Leptolepida, and which of this species, which is there mentioned only as S. forms a transition from the Ganoids to the Teleostei. It Bygmaus ; thus laying himself open to the criticism of seems strange that, while employing the correctly-formed those who are not specialists that he has confused the term Rhizodontide (instead of Rhizodida), the author ferma pigmous and minutus. This species has, more should retain names like Leptolepida and Osteolepida orer, never been recognized in the district, so that its in place of Leptolepidide and Osteolepidide ; but here, mention seems rather unnecessary. In discarding the perhaps, he merely follows those who ought to know fame Lepus timidus in favour of L. europæus for the better. The number of fossil fishes from the Lias quarcomtion hare, our author follows those who regard the ries of Barrow-on-Soar is very considerable ; and we letter of the law as more than the spirit ; and although believe that the Leicester Museum is rich in this respect, there is but little, if any, doubt that at least some of the as well as in the remains of Saurians from the same hares to which Linnæus applied the name of L. timidus locality. were really of that species to which we commonly apply The author seems to have spared no labour in looking the name L. variabilis, yet we cannot help thinking that up references and making his work in all respects as the former name might be advantageously retained in its nearly complete as possible ; and, since the volume is common acceptation.
handsomely got up and well printed, with a remarkable Among the Ungulata, the author retains the fossil freedom from misprints, it should take a place in the first fin longifrons (frontosus) as a distinct species, although rank of local faunas.
R. L. 1 bas been shown over and over again that it can only be regarded as a race of B. taurus. Similarly, all recent Qüservations tend to show that Bos primigenius is nothing THE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF ASA GRAY. more than a larger variety of the same species ; while there appear to be no valid grounds for specifically dis- Scientific Papers of Asa Gray. Selected by Charles tinguishing the Pleistocene Bison priscus from the living
Sprague Sargent. Two Vols. (London: Macmillan
and Co., 1889.) Lithuanian aurochs. The author would confer a great benefit upon paleontologists if he could show how the N°
O more fitting monument could have been raised to skull be refers to the so-called Sus palustris can be the memory of the late Dr. Asa Gray-who was specifically distinguished from one of S. scrofa.
almost as well known to botanists on this side of the In commenting upon the absence of remains of fossil Atlantic as on the other-than a reprint of a selection o Larnivora from the Leicestershire Pleistocene, Mr. Browne his numerous writings. During a period of upwards of does not appear to be aware how extremely rare these fifty years he was actively engaged in the investigation remains are in the equivalent deposits of other counties. and publication of the botany of North America, and Thaz, at Barrington, in Cambridgeshire, where bones studies of a wider range. As Prof. Sargent says, in his and feeth of Ungulates are found by the hundred or preface to the present collection, “The number of his thousand, those of Carnivores may be reckoned by units contributions to science and their variety is remarkable, of tens; and the introduction of special hypotheses to and astonishes his associates even, familiar as they were account for their absence in Leicestershire is, therefore, with his intellectual activity, his various attainments, and quite superfluous.
that surprising industry which neither assured position, the The total number of mammals mentioned is forty-eight weariness of advancing years, nor the hopelessness of the including man), but of this list only twenty-five are now task he had imposed upon himself
, ever diminished.” found in a wild state in the area described. The num The hopeless task, it may be explained, was a complete ber of species of birds is very large, as we might expect “Synoptical Flora of North America.” Botanists need In an area of the size of that forming the subject of the not be told how he laboured to complete this gigantic work. Several species, such as the gannet, cormorant, undertaking, even at an age when most men are past Ac., are, however, but occasional stragglers from the work. Taking up the work where the unfinished “Flora cosast ; while in other cases, as we have already remarked, of North America,” by Torrey and Gray, ceased thirtythe evidence of occurrence within the two counties is of five years previously, Gray published the remainder of the slightest
. A good lithographic plate of Pallas's the Gamopetalæ in 1878. This was followed in 1884 sand-grouse, and a coloured one of the cream-coloured by a re-elaboration of the Compositæ and neighbouring Conurser, are given ; and we also have an elaborate table natural orders ; and the whole was re-issued in the form of the dates of arrival of summer immigrants. In the of one volume in 1886. This volume comprises about reptiles, the five existing species are almost lost among a 1000 closely printed pages of descriptive matter-descripcumber of fossil forms, to which they have but a very tive matter perhaps unsurpassed in botanical literature, remote kinship. This swarnping of recent forms by their and dealing with 567 genera and 3521 species. Whatborsil allies is, however, not so marked among the fishes, ever may be done by Gray's successors towards comowing to the circumstance that all the fossil forms belong pleting the “Synoptical Flora,” his own contribution is a
most valuable one
ne-valuable because it embodies the ence of Nitrogen " ; Benthain's " Hand-book of the British whole of his numerous scattered writings on the group in Flora”; De Candolle's“Géographie Botanique"; Hooker's question.
“Distribution of Arctic Plants" ; Ruskin's " Proserpina In making a selection of Dr. Gray's work for re Darwin's "Insectivorous Plants"; and Wallace's " Epping publication, Prof. Sargent naturally did not choose de- Forest." scriptive botany, though an index to the genera and Among the fourteen " Essays " in the second volume. species described in a variety of more or less inaccessible those on the longevity of trees, the flora of Japan, publications would be of the utmost service to botanists ; Sequoia, and forest geography and archæology, may be for even under the most favourable conditions a long time named as specially interesting. must elapse before the completion of the “Synoptical The biographical sketches are thirty-eight in number, Flora."
ranging from Brown and Humboldt to Bentham and The selection, “which was found difficult and em- Boissier. As only some two hundred pages are devoted barrassing,” is limited to reviews of works on botany and to them, these sketches are, many of them, necessarily related subjects, essays, and biographical sketches, and very brief; but, as Gray had a personal knowledge of it is on the whole, doubtless, as good a one as could have most of the men of whom he wrote, they contain origina: been made. Gray wrote “more than eleven hundred and interesting observations and facts not to be found bibliographical notices and longer reviews, and, as space elsewhere. And all who knew Dr. Gray will enjoy for only fifty is found in a volume of 400 pages, it follows reading again his opinion of other men and their works that "it was necessary to exclude a number of papers
W. BOTTING HEMSLEY. of nearly as great interest and value as those which are chosen." Dr. Gray's method, if I may so term it, of reviewing
MANURES AND THEIR USES. the productions of his contemporaries was of such an instructive, temperate, and impartially critical character Manures and their Uses. By Dr. A. B. Griffiths. (London: that these reviews have a permanent value. On reading
George Bell and Sons, 1889.) some of them again, one is more than ever impressed with the fact that he made himself thoroughly acquainted THIS is a hand-book for farmers and students, and with the works he criticized, and that he well fulfilled his
as duty alike to the public and the author. He did not hesi- successor to the treatise on manures, by the same author. tate to point out what he regarded as defects in the reviewed some months ago in NATURE. The principal writings of his most intimate friends; but he was more value of this latter work consists in the direct information careful to give an analysis of the contents of a book, with it contains as to sources of phosphatic, potassic, and nitro his own views thereon, than to condemn it on its faults or genous manures, including guanos, in all parts of the world weak points.
The analyses, localities, amounts imported, and values, are These reviews cover a wide field, as well as a long all interesting facts for farmers, and this little book may period, and still remain profitable and interesting reading. well take its place in an agricultural library as supplying The selection is too limited to be a history of botany knowledge which otherwise might need research through during the last half-century, but it is sufficiently com- many scattered sources of information. When, however, prehensive to give an idea of the most notable events. we consider the book as a means for imparting sound It is true that the essays on the Darwinian theory are not views on agricultural principles, we must advise caution here reproduced, as they had already been republished by on the part of the reader. Dr. Griffiths is one of those their author.
teachers who are infected with an inordinate affection for The first volume, which is devoted to reviews, com- | chemical manures. He believes, with M. Ville, that the mences with a detailed notice of the second edition of farmer who uses nothing but farmyard manure exhaust: Lindley's “Natural System of Botany" and ends with his land.” Now, a man who starts with such an obvious Ball's “Flora of the Peruvian Andes,” reminding us of fallacy can scarcely get into the right path. This docour most recent loss in the very small circle of private trine is contrary to science and practice ; and until Dr. gentlemen who may be said to have studied botany Griffiths relinquishes it he cannot hope to enjoy the consuccessfully.
fidence of any farmer. We venture to put the matter in Early among the reviews is that of Endlicher's “Genera two or three positions from which it can be clearly viewed. Plantarum," a work published at intervals between 1836 Dr. Griffiths says, “ This [farmyard] manure is erroneously and 1840 ; and, almost at the end, a short article on the supposed to contain all the necessary plant-foods required completion of Bentham and Hooker's “Genera Plan- for the growth of crops." Erroneously! why, farmyard tarum,” 1862-83. In the latter we find a comparison of manure at least must contain all the constituents of straw, the number of genera admitted in various works of the for it is largely made of straw. Similarly, it must contain same class, from the appearance of the first edition of the elements of turnips and root crops, when it is comLinnæus's “Genera Plantarum," in 1737, down to posed of them in no small proportion. Also it must Bentham and Hooker, and remarks on the ideas of contain the constituents of corn, because all meals and generic limits entertained by the different authors, and on cakes which are consumed by cattle, and all hay, which the relative quality of their work.
is also consumed by cattle, contain the constituents of Interspersed between these are notices of such widely corn in the form of nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur, potash, different subjects as De Candolle's "Prodromus"; von lime, magnesia, &c. Whether looked at chemically nur Mohl's "Vegetable Cell”; Boussingault, “On the Influ- approached through pure reasoning, it is clear that farm
yard manure is the true restorer of fertility, the very milk body in octavo form, have contained a number of articles of plants, the very life-blood of the soil, if such an expres from his pen upon the Cetacea of the European seas, and sion may be allowed. Farmyard manure during its decay it has been a happy idea of the author to collect these has its elements liberated from organic combinations gra- render them accessible to many who would have difficulty
together, and republish them in a handy form, so as to dually, and when wanted, as well as in a condition so avail. in referring to them when scattered throughout the pages able for the food of plants, that as a manure it is inimitable. of the journal in which they first appeared. No other manure can in all cases be applied to all crops The work treats systematically of all the species known with the same marked effects. It is strange that farm- to inhabit any of the seas by which Europe is surrounded, yard manure alone acts promptly and certainly upon and under each species are sections devoted to the leguminous crops such as beans, peas, and clover. No literature, the history, the synonymy, the characters, the
organization, the habits, the geographical distribution, chemical manure, whether nitrogenous or phosphatic, can the mode of capture, the museums in which specimens be relied upon to affect these crops, and yet farmyard dung are known to exist, the published figures, and finally an tells upon them at once. Dr. Griffiths lays stress upon / account of the commensals and parasites which dwell the fact that animals retain phosphates and nitrogen for ! upon or within them. On all these subjects the informazbe formation of bones, nerves, and muscles, and therefore tion given is derived from years of close and diligent t3 some extent rob the land. This fact is, however, entirely gathering, and the result is an exhaustive account of our
present knowledge of the European Cetacea. As a book over-ridden by the customary importation of extraneous of reference to all who are engaged in the study of matter on to the farm in the form of foods purchased. cetology this work is absolutely invaluable, and if figures, The amount of phosphates and nitrogen removed by even in outline, of all the species had been added, it anınals in their bodies is as nothing compared to the tons might have gone far to occupy the place of the muchof cake, meal
, hay, and even roots which are imported. needed popular hand-book of this still little understood, Neither must we forget the town manure which is so often
though interesting order of mammals.
The number of species admitted is judiciously rebought by farmers, and which will compensate for such a stricted, many of those appearing in previous works being loss as that which Dr. Griffiths fears. Too much pro- ' relegated either definitely or provisionally to synonyms. minence is given to chemical manures, and too little Twenty-six are, however, left, all undoubtedly distinct importance is attached to stock-feeding as a manurial forms. Of these, seven are whalebone whales, viz. gency. Dr. Griffiths quotes many writers upon matters Balænoptera rostrata, B. borealis, B. musculus, and
Balana biscayensis, B._mysticetus, Megaptera boöps, om which they are scarcely to be regarded as authorities. B. sibbaldii, five are Ziphioids, viz. Physeter maUn such matters he might just as well have told us crocephalus, Hyperoodon rostratus, Ziphius cavirostris, his opinion, instead of backing it up with the name of a Micropterus sowerbyi, and Dioplodon europæus; and solicitor who has been dead for years and whom nobody the remaining fourteen are Delphinoids, viz. Phocæna now knows of. Neither is an agriculturist, pure and communis,, Orca gladiator, Pseudorca crassidens, simple, an authority on a chemical point such as the albirostris, L. acutus, Eudelphinus 'delphis, Tursiops
Globicephalus melas, Grampus griseus, Lagenorhynchus valuation of farmyard manure on the basis of its chemical tursio, Prodelphinus tethyos, P. dubius, Šteno rostratus, constituent parts.
Delphinopterus leucas, and Monodon monoceros. The Dr. Griffiths claims to have made a discovery with only exceptions we can take to this nomenclature are the regard to the use of iron sulphate as a fertilizer, and a adoption of the generic term Micropterus in preference good deal of space is devoted to this subject, which is not to Mesoplodon, as the former was preoccupied by a genus without interest . Half a hundredweight of iron sulphate per phinus for the common dolphin. If this should be gene
of Coleoptera, and the use of the needless term Eudelacre produces extraordinary results, according to experi- rally accepted, the good old Linnean genus Delphinus ments recorded in this book. No doubt this is Dr. Griffiths's would disappear altogether from the list. That it should great point, and far be it from us to detract from its be greatly restricted by the lopping off of aberrant significance. If it is as potent a fertilizer as Dr. Griffiths branches was inevitable, but surely the name might have thinks, we shall probably hear more of it. He is evidently been left for such a characteristic species.
W. H. F. nor the man to let the matter rest.
Hand-book of Practical Botany for the Botanical Labor
atory and Private Student. By E. Strasburger. OUR BOOK SHELF.
Edited, from the German, by W. Hillhouse, M.A.,
F.L.S.' Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged. With Histoire Naturelle des Cétacés des Mers d'Europe. By 116 original and 33 additional Illustrations. (London: I'. J. Van Beneden. Pp. 664. (Brussels : F. Hayez. Swan Sonnenschein and Co., 1889.)
THE first edition of Prof. Hillhouse's translation of 11 is fifty-three years since the veteran Professor of Strasburger's “Practical Botany" was reviewed in Zoology in the University of Louvain published his first NATURE (vol. xxxv. P. 556). The new edition has been paper on the Cetacea, entitled “Caractères spécifiques considerably enlarged, and is now intermediate in extent des grands Cetacés tirés de la conformation de l'oreile between the smaller and the larger German editions. VESEUSE." During the greater part of this long period he The new matter, mainly derived from the larger“ Botanhas made thia group of animals especially his own, isches Practicum,” second edition, adds greatly to the kaving industriously collected from every available source value of the book. The most important additions are information upon them, which he has given to the world, the accounts of the reproduction of Fucus and of Chara, Tint only in his great works on the osteology of the and of the fertilization and embryology of Picea. The Cetacea and the fossil Cetacea of Antwerp, but also in a much fuller description of the reproduction of Mucor series of memoirs which have appeared from time to must also be noticed, as well as the considerable alteratime in the publications of the Belgian Academy of tions, affecting both text and figures, in the chapters on Sciences. During the last three years the "Mémoires vascular bundles. Further, the structure of the grain COMPANInés et autres Mémoires,” published by that learned of wheat is now described—a very useful addition.