Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CURRENT LITERATURE.

BOOK REVIEWS.

Photomicrographs of plant rusts.

THERE is a difficulty in studying microscopic fungi, from which the student. of phanerogamic plants is exempt. It arises from the minuteness of the parts, making it necessary to prepare a slide and place it under the microscope, and sometimes more than one slide, before the essential characters can be seen. As only one slide can be examined at a time, the student must carry a mental picture of the various forms previously examined which he desires to compare with the one under examination. He cannot lay his two or more objects side by side and have them both or all equally under consideration at the same time.

One of the best known means for reducing this difficulty to a minimum is the use of photomicrographs. When skilfully prepared under uniform conditions and magnification they are of great assistance in making close comparisons between a few forms, and immensely facilitate the rapid review of a large series.

Recognizing these facts, together with the additional one that many species are so rare that the student can not hope always to secure a specimen, Professor E. W. D. HOLWAY, of the University of Minnesota, has undertaken to publish a complete series of photomicrographs of the spores of the North American rusts.1 The work starts out with the genus Puccinia, taking the species up systematically according to hosts. The first number begins with the order Ranunculaceae, having seventeen species, followed by nine other orders. The 45 species of this first number are illustrated by 62 figures, all but one representing the spores as seen in the field of a microscope under a magnification of 250 diameters. The photogravure plates show almost the same perfection of detail as the original photographs, both being of superior quality.

The text accompanying the plates is of the nature of a monograph. Each species is fully described, with synonymy, distribution, and citation of exsiccati. The work is all founded upon the specimens and treatises in the herbarium of the University of Minnesota, and is carried out with much critical insight.

The number forms a highly valuable addition to the literature of the plant rusts, and especially so on account of the illustrations, few botanists having such skill in the production of photomicrographs as the author.-J. C. ARTHUR.

Luther Burbank.

THOSE who know Mr. Burbank personally admire his gentle and simple character; they who know his work acclaim him as a genius in plant breeding

1 HOLWAY, E. W. D., North American Uredineae, Vol. I, part 1. 4to. pp. iii+32. pl. 1-10. Minneapolis, 1905. $2.00.

[blocks in formation]

and marvel at his dauntless and unselfish devotion thereto; they realize that he has operated on a grand scale, producing, by his acute judgment and his keen insight, even more than by skilful and ingenious manipulation, remarkable and valuable results. He is a great man-doubtless the greatest-in his chosen field; granting that he is now worthy a biography, he is most unfortunate in his biographer.2

To describe the personality of a great man one must not only be enamored of the man, but be able to sketch him in attitudes of mind and soul that carry conviction of greatness. To exhibit the work of a great man, one must not only be conversant with the details of the work, but be able to make manifest its nature and its bearings, its problems, and its triumphs.

Mr. HARWOOD is convinced that LUTHER BURBANK is a superlatively great man; but he cannot compel his readers to believe this by mere reiterated assertion. He is sure that the work is marvelous and of surpassing value; but as he obviously knows nothing of horticulture and less of botany, he is incompetent to explain it. He insists ad nauseam that Mr. BURBANK is a scientific luminary of the first magnitude; but our author has no inkling of the meaning of scientific training, nor does he know the criteria of a man of science; he does not even perceive that his liberal (and presumably literal) quotations convict his hero of some lack of the scientific spirit, which is even more important than the errors they embody.

Given reasonably clear English and a logical presentation, the actual information in this book could be condensed into a magazine article. It is surprising that a house like the Macmillan Co. should lend its imprint to a volume with the style and English of a sensational newspaper, not to mention consistent misspelling which cannot be laid at the door of the compositor.

As to the work of BURBANK little need be said. Its economic value is unquestionable, even though many of the most wonderful things are not yet quite perfected. And no one will doubt the devotion and few will question the altruism of this man, who like AGASSIZ, has been too busy to make money, except for further prosecution of his work. But withal it must be recognized that he is no "wizard of horticulture;" he has no secrets but skill and insight derived from long experience; he has devised no unusual methods and developed no essentially new ideas in plant breeding. Naturally when he claims to have disproved this scientific theory or that, one hears his opinion and, without doubting his sincerity, remains incredulous until the proof is adduced. If that can be done none sooner than scientific men will recognize and acclaim it. But incredulity is only aggravated by assertion without evidence, and distrust can only be intensified by such absolute misconception of so clear a theory as that of DEVRIES.—C. R. B.

2 HARWOOD, W. S., New creations in plant life. An authoritative account of the life and work of Luther Burbank. 12mo. pp. xiv +368. New York: The Macmillan Co. 1905. $1.75.

Organography

THE LARGE English edition of the second part of GOEBEL'S Organography of plants has now appeared.3 The first part has become so indispensable to students of experimental morphology that the translation of the second has been awaited with much interest, and with some impatience as time wore on. As the German edition was reviewed in this journal shortly after its appearance in 1900,4 little need now be said about the subject matter. The work, as a whole, is an attempt to present the configuration of plants from the point of view of function and environment. While the first part is primarily a discussion of principles, the second is devoted to a more detailed presentation of the structures and variations of the Bryophyta, Pteridophyta, and Spermatophyta. The wide experience of the author in experimental work, and more especially his great wealth of first-hand observation of plants under most diverse conditions, has enabled him to present a mass of detailed information that is of very great value and suggestiveness.

The translation has been accurately done by Professor BALFOUR. "Spermophyta" will strike everyone as a novel form, but it has classical usage as justification and its brevity will probably cause it to displace the more familiar Spermatophyta. The translator has taken wise liberties with the typographical form, by making headings and subheadings that present the matter more clearly to the eye. When he alters the order of figures, however, we think he goes a bit too far. Other points of make-up are open to objection. If the translation had been made into two volumes of nearly equal size, by dividing at the section on Pteridophyta and Spermophyta the work would have been more convenient to handle than in one thin (270 pages) and one thick (708 pages) part. The separate pagination, and calling the volumes "parts," together with the separate numbering of figures seem to us distinct bibliographical mistakes.

The index is very complete and adds greatly to the value of this translation. The index to illustrations should have been made a part of it. Two indexes are never as good as one.-W. B. MCCALLUM.

Mosses and ferns

THE EXHAUSTION of the edition of CAMPBELL's Mosses and ferns and the continuing demand for it have given opportunity for a thorough revision, made necessary by the researches of the last decade. With the experience gained from a first edition, the author who undertakes a second, unhampered by "plates,”

3 GOEBEL, K., Organography of plants, especially of the Archegoniatae and Spermophyta. Authorized English edition by ISAAC BAYLEY BALFOUR. Part II. Special Organography. Imp. 8vo. pp. xxiv+708. figs. 417. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1905. $7.00.

4 BOTANICAL GAZETTE 31:204. 1901.

5 CAMPBELL, D). H., The structure and development of mosses and ferns (Archegoniatae). 8vo. pp. vii+657. figs. 322. New York: The Macmillan Co. 1905. $4.50.

may reasonably be expected to perfect his book to the limit of his powers, embracing the opportunity not only to bring the work up to date, but also to eliminate crudities of design and execution, well-nigh inseparable from a first edition.

These expectations, unhappily, are not fully met in the revision of Mosses and ferns. This is the more disappointing in that the volume is indispensable, both because it is unique in its field, and because of certain undeniably excellent features. These have become well known, and we do not recount them because they are so. They are transmitted, undiminished, to the present edition.

That the book is fairly brought up to date goes without saying, though one may differ from the author as to relative values among some of the newer researches, and may wish that some of the old figures had been replaced by new and better ones. In the bryophyte portion there is less change than among the chapters on pteridophytes, because among the mosses the researches have been fewer and less important. This is shown by space comparisons:

[blocks in formation]

In the bryophytes there are no notable changes of view;. in the pteridophytes there are some; but on the whole the author believes that later investigations have confirmed his earlier views. The Isoetaceae have been removed from their association with the Marattiaceae and placed after the Lycopodineae, but other large groups hold the same position as in the first edition. The most extensive revision appears in the section on the eusporangiate ferns, where particular attention is paid to the work of Bower.

Some new material is here published for the first time, but it is mostly taken (with due acknowledgment to others) from papers previously published. A new chapter on the nature of alternation of generations discusses the probable origin of the liverwort thallus, the origin and evolution of the sporophyte, and presents the arguments for homologous and for antithetic alternation, the author giving his adherence to the latter theory. He reiterates the opinion also, that the weight of evidence is in favor of a genetic connection of Pteridophyta with Bryophyta, through Anthocerotes. There is also a new chapter on fossil archegoniates, in which Scorr's results figure largely.

Some inaccuracies of the first edition are corrected and some persist. Thus, in an attempt to correct the curious error as to the annulus of the moss capsule, the author doubles it on p. 210, but leaves it in the adjacent figure and on p. 213 in its Simon-pure form. The obviously misleading account of the megaspo

6 Greater than either part on account of added chapters.

rangium of Azolla is also retained (p. 414). "Recent" still appears in referring to papers, recent when the first edition was issued in 1895 (e. g., Waldner 1887, Guignard 1889, Buchtien 1887), but now rather ancient.

In style and method of presentation the second edition has no advantage over the first. So far as typography affects it, there seems to be almost ingenuity in selecting for chapter headings and especially for subheads, the most confused and, to a novice, confusing forms. Thus, interpreted by accepted typographical canons, The biology of the Marchantiales is a subhead under MONOCLEA; and THE ACROGYNAE is a subhead under ANACROGYNAE, and coordinate with ANELATEREAE and ELATEREAE. Citation of bibliographical references in subheads is awkward and is a new blemish, e. g.,

LYCOPODINEAE (Potonie (3); Scott (1); Solms Laubach (2)).

The bibliography, to whose enlargement and completeness the author refers in the preface, would have profited by greater care. Not only are there numerous mistakes in the text-references, one paper being cited when another is meant, but there are papers cited in the text which do not appear in the bibliography at all. Five such cases came to light by pure chance-GARBer, Porsild, AshWORTH, BAUKE, and GRAND' EURY; how many could be found by searching we know not. As a minor, but not trifling, matter may be mentioned the unsystematic mode of writing citations; e. g., in the same page four of BOWER'S Studies in the morphology of spore-producing members are cited thus:

Roy. Soc. Phil. Trans., vol. clxxxv: 1894, p. 473.

London, 1896. [Nothing more.]

Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., series B, vol. 189: 35-81, 1897.

Phil. Trans., ser. B., vol. 192: 29 138, 1899.

A like variety can be found in the citation of journals. There are traces of a self-consistent system, however, which hardly goes beyond the adoption, from the one most widely used in America, of its most unimportant feature-the colon following the volume number!

Proof-reading throughout the volume has been very bad, for much of which the printing office and the publishers are blameworthy, but not for all.

The index is really absurd. It is charitable to believe that the author farmed this out to an inexpert hand, and what he did not do to spoil it by sins of omission and commission, the compositor did by ingenious disarrangement of a too complex system of indention. E. g., "Hepaticae" (a curious entry when there are 150 pages about them) has thirty-nine bare entries; its subordinate phrase "germination of spores" has one, and "spores" one (the same), while the spores and their germination are referred to dozens of times in the text. "Acrogynae" has five entries, but "Acrogenous liverworts" in the next line has one, and that is not among the five! "Affinities" has only two sub-references, Matonia and Monoclea, whereas almost every large group has under it in the text a conspicuous subhead, like Affinities of the Musci, and so on.

« AnteriorContinuar »