50 Bibliographical Notices. s, chitinous shield ; k, crown. The soft part of the head is wanting. Fig. 3. The portion of the Lernaodiscus which is situated within the Por-cellana, magnified 25 diameters : 6, chitinous lamellae ; k, crown ; w, roots. Fig. 4. Saccnlina purpurea, magnified 3 times : a, from below ; b, from the right side ; a, b, k, as in fig. 2. Fig. 6. The portion of the Sacculina situated within the Pagurus, magnified 15 diameters : k, crown ; w, roots. Fig. 6. Earliest larval state of Lernceodiscus, from beneath, magnified 180 diameters. Fig. 7. Earliest larval state of Sacculina, from above, magnified 180 dia-meters. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES. Manual of British Botany. By Charles Cardale Babington, M.A., F.R.S., F.L.S. &c., &c.. Professor of Botany in the Uni-versity of Cambridge. Fifth Edition, with many additions and corrections. London : Van Voorst, 1862. The * Manual of British Botany ' continues to maintain a steadily progressive character. Every page of the new edition bears witness to the industry and care of its author, and to his endeavour to keep pace with the advance of botany on the European continent. The Synopsis of Orders has been altogether remodelled, and is now arranged on the analytical or dichotomous plan so much used by French botanists. The descriptions of several of the more diflficult genera and species have been re-written. Many improvements have also been made in defining the places of growth and range of the plants ; and we meet with a welcome addition in the form of a glos-sary of botanical terms, which, like the accents now placed over the Latin names, will no doubt be found very serviceable. Professor Babington thus announces his botanical creed : — " An attempt has recently been made greatly to reduce the number of our native species. The results seem to be so totally opposed to the teaching of the plants themselves, and the evidence adduced in their favour is so seldom more than a statement of opinion, that they can-not safely be adopted. Also, it has been laid down as a rule by some botanists that no plant can be a species whose distinctive characters are not as manifest in a herbarium as when alive. We are told that our business as descriptive botanists is not * to determine what is a species,' but simply to describe plants so that they may be easily recognized from the dry specimen. The author cannot agree to this rule. Although he, in common with other naturalists, is unable to define what is a species, he believes that species exist, and that they may often be easily distinguished amongst living plants, even when separated with diflSculty from their allies when dried specimens only are examined. He also thinks that it is our duty as botanists to study the living plants whenever it is possible to do so, and to de-scribe from them — to write for the use of field-rather than cabinet-
BioStor
