Page:Journal of botany, British and foreign, Volume 34 (1896).djvu/160

 140 PHANEROGAMIC BOTANY OP MATTO GROSSO EXPEDITION. The Phanerogamic Botany of the Matto G rosso Expedition, 1891-92. By Spencer Le M. Moore, B.Sc.,F.L.S. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London (Botany), 2nd Ser. iv. pp. 265-516, tt. xxi-xxxix, maps. December, 1895. This important contribution to our knowledge of Brazilian botany — of which a summary will be found in this Journal for 1893, p. 381 — was read at the Linuean Society by the author on Nov. 2nd, 1893, and has thus taken more than two years to produce. Mr. Moore's absence from England, and his consequent inability to correct the proofs, have no doubt contributed to a delay in printing which, even with this qualification, appears excessive, although it may have been unavoidable. Mr. Moore's interesting introduction extends over thirty pages, the remainder of the paper being occupied with the enumeration and description of the species collected, printed in the handsome, not to say extravagant, style in which the Linnean Society issues its Transactions. Eight new genera are figured and described — Kphedrantlius and 6'torwu'a(Anonacea9), De6fl?emowa(Scrophulariaceae), Heterocroton (Euphorbiaceae), Brosimopsis (Artocarpese), Zygella (Irideae), Aphyllantm (Aroideae), and Pogochloa (Gramineae) : in most of these the minute structure has been carefully examined and figured. The descriptions of the species and the comparison of some of them with allied forms lead to the conclusion that Mr. Moore takes a somewhat narrower view of specific limitations than that which prevails nowadays, but he has bestowed much trouble and time upon his work, and his opinions are therefore entitled to respect. Botanists working in this country will at any rate be able to form their own judgment,"' as the first set of the plants, with Mr. Moore's notes and names, is in the British Museum ; the others being at Berlin, New York, Vienna, and Kew — here curiously called " the Thames-side institution " — respectively. One or two points suggest criticism. It is difficult to see what is gained by the description, often at considerable length, of plants the genus and even the order of which cannot be determined. Pages 330, 331, for example, are mainly occupied with descriptions of three Maljnghiacece, of which Mr. Moore says, " Specimina mane revera fructibus carentia, quapropter quoad genus om- nino dubia"; and a ''planta incertae sedis," of which even the order (*' Simarubaceae?") is doubtful. Nor do we perceive the advantage of describing a plant as " Rudgea sp. nov." If there is sufficient material to determine it as " sp. nov.," there is enough to entitle it to a name. It seems unnecessary to place " sp. nov." in brackets after the new species — the absence of any other reference implies this : but if it is done at all, it should be done uniformly — at present we are left in doubt as to whether *' Galactia Whitehomei S. Moore " and ^^ Aneilema semifoliata C. B. Clarke " are new or old species. The proofs might have been better read : ** Glagiou " for T M. Chodat, himself no "lumper," has already veierred Poly gala hygro' philoides to P. timoutoidee Chodat, with which Mr. Moore had indicated its affinity.