We have examined Dr. Wimmer's volume chiefly with the view of finding what light he throws on our British species. It is curious to trace their history in our British Floras. Ray, in his first edition (1690) distinguishes 14 species; this number is raised to 22 by Dillenius, in the third edition of the 'Synopsis " (1724). Hudson reduces them to 16 (1778), and Withering returns to Dillenius's number (1787). Smith, in his Flora Britannica,' enumerates 45, in his 'English Flora,' 64"; and there are no less than 76 different forms figured in ‘English Botany.' Lindley, following Koch, brings them down to 29; Babington makes them 31; Hooker and Arnott, 38; and Bentham 15, being one more than the number Ray described nearly 180 years ago. Wimmer considers that we have 19 true species, besides several distinct and distinguishable varieties. But before giving an epitome of his conclusions in regard to British species, we must express our regret that the author knows nothing of what has been done by Leefe, Borrer, and others, and that the 'Flora Britannica' (1800) is the latest British Flora with which he is acquainted. Any more recent information is obtained from Forbes's Salictum Woburnense,' a work of little critical value. This necessarily detracts from the value of the work to British botanists. The following nineteen species, enumerated in the order of Babington's Manual,' he considers good: 15. S. aurita, L. 16. S. Caprea, L. 17. S. nigricans, Sm. ana, Willd. 23. S. repens, L. 25. S. Arbuscula, L. 26. S. Lapponum, L. 27. S. lanata, L. 28. S. Myrsinites, L. 31. S. herbacea, L. One species he makes a synonym of one of the above, viz. :— 10. S. viminalis, L. 14. S. cinerea, L. And the following species he reduces to hybrid forms, some of which VOL. IV. [DECEMBER 1, 1866.] 2 c are, we doubt not, rightly referred, but others, if hybrids, certainly owe their origin to different species than those indicated: 2. S. cuspidata, Schultz = S. pentandra-fragilis, Wimm. 5. S. undulata, Ehrh. S. triandra-alba ?, Wimm. 9. S. rubra, Huds. = S. viminalis-purpurea, Wimm. 11. S. stipularis, Sm. = ? 12. S. Smithiana, Willd. = S. caprea-viminalis, Wimm. The following recognized varieties he also reduces to hybrid forms : Fungi Britannici Exsiccati. A M. C. COOKE Collecti. Cent. 2. London: Hardwicke. 1866. British mycologists will welcome this second fasciculus of British Fungi. Like the former, it consists almost entirely of epiphytal species, and among them we notice several that are of interest even to those who have long studied this curious set of plants. There are three species new to science,-Venturia Myrtilli, Sphærella inæqualis, and S. Vaccinii; several are new to Britain, such as Ecidium Orchidearum, Puccinium Asari, P. difformis, and Sphærella myriadea; while others are very rare species, thus, Puccinium Campanulæ has not been noticed since Carmichael found it; P. Caltha, Torrubia entomorrhiza, Septoria Ledi, and many others might be characterized as rare. There is a curious specimen of what is believed to be Macrosporium Cheiranthi on a leaf of Beta vulgaris; we should have thought this sufficient to establish it as a new species, for the practice generally has been to make as many species of Puccinium, or any other epiphytal Fungus, as there are species on which they grow. We hope there is - here the dawn of a better appreciation of species than we have known in the past. Prodromus Systematis Naturalis Regni Vegetabilis. Editore A. De Candolle. Pars XV., Sectio Posterior, Fasc. II., sistens Euphorbiæas. Auctore J. Müller, Argoviensi. Paris. 1866. On receiving this work we ventured to characterize it as remarkable for the number of old synonyms which have been cleared up by the examination of authentic specimens, for the profound treatment of the subject, and the remarkable intelligence of the natural method shown by its author (ante, p. 304). Our continued examination confirms us in this judgment. Dr. Müller handles in a masterly manner this very large, obscure, and very difficult Order. Not only have the genera and species been in a state of great confusion, but even the position that the Order itself should occupy in the vegetable kingdom has been a subject of conflicting opinions. The apetalous character of the European representatives of the Order has too much influenced botanists in placing it among the Monochlamydeæ. This is the position it occupies in most Floras, and in all our British Manuals. In the Prodromus it is also placed among the apetalous Orders, apparently indicating that M. De Candolle takes this view of its position, although in his description of the Order we find these characters, "Corolla polypetala, vel rarissime gamopetala, vel nulla." In forming a true estimate of the relations of the Order, the polypetalous genera, which are the bulk of it, must be taken into account. If the apetalous structure of some genera, in other Orders, as Ranunculaceae, is not sufficient to set aside the polypetalous character of the Order, we see no reason why it should have so much weight in Euphorbiacea. But this character of the presence or absence of a corolla is properly considered of no value in aberrant genera or even in aberrant suborders, else would we be obliged to break up many Natural Orders, and it would be difficult to say where we could stop, for, as Dr. Dickson has shown (Journ. of Bot. Vol. III. p. 209), from the development of the organs, those parts of the flower in some Rosacea, which every one invariably calls petals, are not petals at all, but stamens with petaloid apices. We would prefer placing the Euphorbiaceae beside Rhamnacea or Malvacea, from which it differs chiefly in its unisexuality, rather than with Urticacea, with which it has much less in common. But our purpose was to examine the part of the Prodromus just published, and not the position of the Order. Boissier had already monographed the Euphorbieæ in the first part of the volume; the remainder of the Order is here described by Dr. Müller, who assumes the distinctive designation Argoviensi, to distinguish him from the numerous Müllers who have devoted or are devoting themselves to botanical inquiries. Dr. Müller is a "lumper" of species; he has reduced many forms that were considered good species. He derives his specific diagnosis chiefly from the characters of the flowers, considering those of the leaves, etc., to be of less importance and of value only for distinguishing varieties. The volume consequently does not greatly increase the numbers of the Euphorbiacea, although it contains many new forms. Dr. Müller introduces an innovation, which is to us very objectionable, and which we hope will not be perpetuated, as it will inevitably introduce endless confusion, impossible to be cleared up, into our already confused botanical nomenclature. Without altering the name, but because he includes forms that had before been excluded, he displaces the name of the author of the species, and attaches his own to it. Thus, Mercurialis perennis is not of L. but of Müll. Arg. Were this to be adopted, every "lumper" in reviewing a genus or family would be entitled to place his name after all the species, and, his "splitting successor in the same work, giving a different value to his species, would also give us a complete change in the authors' names. We trust M. De Candolle will hesitate before he permits such a source . of confusion a permanent admission to the Prodromus. دو BOTANICAL NEWS. George Heinrich Mettenius was born on the 24th of November, 1823, at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, where his father was a merchant. He attended the model school, and afterwards the school of Director Stellway, both at Frankfort, and subsequently became a pupil of the gymnasium of the same city, which he attended until 1841. In the spring of 1841 he went to the University of Heidelberg, devoting himself to the study of medicine. At Heidelberg he took, in July, 1845, the degree of Doctor of Medicine, his inaugural dissertation being De Salvinia (Francofurti ad M., 1845, 4to). In the spring of the year 1846 he became a physician, but he never practised. In the autumn of 1846 he went to Heligoland, where he studied marine Algæ; the winter of 1846-47 was spent at Berlin; the summer of 1849 at Vienna, where he attended some of the medical lectures and the clinical classes of the hospitals; but specially devoted himself to botanical studies. In the autumn of 1847 he went to Dalmatia, and studied particularly the marine Algæ at Fiume. In the spring of 1848 he settled as "Privatdocent" of botany at the University of Heidelberg, where his public lectures were well attended. In the spring of 1851 he was called as Professor Extraordinary, in the place of Professor Alex. Braun, who had gone to Giessen, to the University of Freiburg, in Baden. There he remained only a year and a half. In the autumn of 1852 he was appointed Professor in Ordinary and Director of the Botanic Garden of Leipzig, where the chair of Botany had become vacant by the death of Professor Kunze. He married on June 14, 1859, Cecilia, the second daughter of Professor Alexander Braun [Professor Caspary having married the elder daughter of the same accomplished botanist on the same day]. At Leipzig Mettenius worked and studied up to the time of his death, which took place on August 18, 1866, from cholera. His last illness began at one o'clock in the morning. Being himself a physician, he soon felt that recovery was impossible, in spite of the exertions of two of the most eminent physicians of Leipzig. His mind, however, was clear enough to allow him to communicate to his wife his most important wishes as regarded his affairs. He died at six o'clock in the evening of the same day. Mettenius was a very tall, athletic man, of great bodily strength. He led the most regular life possible. At five o'clock he began the work of the day, and finished it punctually at ten in the evening. His whole mind was turned towards the study of plants, and especially of Ferns, of which he found a very good living and dried collection in the garden at Leipzig, which had been brought together by Kunze. This he increased so greatly, that the Ferns of Leipzig are scarcely rivalled anywhere. Few directors of botanic gardens ever spent so much time and trouble in arranging the garden as Mettenius, for the inspector of the garden, Mr. Bernhardi, was in infirm health, so that Mettenius himself very generally took the whole management of the garden upon himself, being out by six o'clock in the morning and directing the operations of each of the labourers. He had a most intimate acquaintance with botanical literature, having great powers of reading, and he had formed an excellent library. His manners were retired and modest; he was devoted to his wife, and faithfully attached to his friends. He was one of those few persons upon whose word and deed entire reliance might be placed. He disliked to show off in public. His candid way of thinking, combined with a keen and penetrating judgment, may have caused him to appear, perhaps, sometimes stern and too severe, in the eyes of those of whom he had reason not to hold so favourable an opinion as others may have done. It is much to be regretted that the comprehensive work to which all his labours tended, viz. a 'Species Filicum,' studies for which he had made at nearly all the principal herbaria, as well as at Paris and Kew, has been left unfinished. Doubtless he had the most intimate knowledge |