Page:Natural History Review (1861).djvu/17

Rh of all the species of truly baccate Carisseæ, from the Old as well as the New World, some further generic consolidation may simplify the system. The other nine genera, Heterothrix, Macrosiphonia, Amblyanthera, Mesechites, Rhodocalyx, Rhabdadenia, Stipecoma, Prestoniopsis, and Urechites (the two last extra-Brazilian) would all have formed part of the old genus Echites. Their establishment as separate genera may have been rendered necessary by the adoption of those already severed from Echites by Alph. De Candolle and others; and the numerous species appear to us to be better grouped here than in the Prodromus; yet we cannot but regret that, in some instances, the course had not been preferred of maintaining larger genera, divided into sub-genera and sections.

With regard to species, as far as we have investigated them, we consider Dr. Müller's appreciation of their value as very fair. As was to be expected, several which had been previously proposed, upon single specimens, have, on the comparison of more copious collections, proved to be varieties of variable types; and a considerable number of old Echites, especially belonging to the genera Odontadenia, Dipladenia, Amblyanthera, &c, admitted into the Prodromus and other works, are here judiciously reduced. Future investigations may even suggest still further consolidations: Forsteronia Benthamiana (Müll.), will, for instance, probably prove to be but a very slight variety of F. Schomburgkii. But, upon the whole, we can neither class Dr. Müller with the modern wholesale species-makers, nor yet charge him with inconsiderate amalgamation.

Besides the 274 species of Apocynaceæ enumerated in the present work, Dr. Müller has published annotations or descriptions of sixty more American, but not Brazilian species, in the 30th vol. of the Linnæa, pp. 387 to 454.

work is a most valuable addition to the botanical literature of this country. To a great extent (although, from its professedly limited scope, not entirely) it fills up a gap which has long existed. None of the recent works on the British Flora profess to deal with the Fungi, nor would it be convenient that they should do so; for the subject, from its nature and magnitude, requires to be treated separately. Mr. Berkeley's work contains descriptions, accompanied in many instances by figures, of all such British Fungi as require nothing more than a common lens for their examination; and, in addition, it contains the characters of the genera of all other known British Fungi, with a list