BOOK-NOTBS, NEWS, ETC. 143 with which they had nothing to do — and Sir Joseph Hooker in particular for "the wonderful care" in assigning the native countries to the species — that being in reality the least satis- factory feature of the Index, — the actual compiler is not once named, nor is he even cited in the title, as is the case in all the other works mentioned. Mr. Jackson, whose indifference to the way in which credit lias been carefully withheld from him furnishes an example of modesty as admirable as it is rare, no doubt finds consolation in the fact that he has done a valuable piece of work in a satisfactory manner, and that those who use his book know whom they have to thank for it ; but it is none the less dis- creditable that the honour of an undertaking which no one but he would have carried through successfully should be persistently ascribed to every one but the man who is justly entitled to it. It is not surprising to find that the reviewer entirely misunder- stands the scope of the Index. It is becoming abundantly manifest that the omission of any prefatory matter to the hidecc Kewensis is causing, as we pointed out must be the case (Journ. Bot. 1895, 347), considerable in- convenience. The inaccurate prefatory statement by Sir Joseph Hooker that the work had been carried out at the Kew Herbarium,
- with the aid of the staff of that establishment," coupled with the
notice in the Kew Bulletin (1896, 29) that it is "in no sense intended to represent the views of Kew," naturally puzzles folk ; and the writer of a letter in the PharmaceuticaL Journal for Feb. 22nd reasonably enquires, *' If the work is not to be considered an expression of the views of Kew . . . why is it stated that the work was done with the aid of the Herbarium staff? " The reply to the latter question is not obvious, for it is well known that Mr. Jackson's assistants in the compilation had no connection with the Kew establishment, but were engaged by him for that special purpose. A SOMEWHAT lengthy notice of General Paris's Index Bryologicus (Paris : Klincksieck) was given in this Journal for 1895 (pp. 26-29) upon the appearance of Part i. ; and the great want of such an Index among moss-students was pointed out. Part ii. (Dec. 1895, pp. 325-644) is now in the market, and will be found to pick up the thread of the subject in the genus Dicnemon, and to carry it on to about two-fifths of the way through Hypnum. This latter genus, though not half finished, occupies thirty-nine pages ; yet only 132 out of 322 recognised species are here included. It is of course the immense synonymy of the older species and the numerous varieties of H. ciipressiforme and of the Harpidia which account for the bulkiness of the genus. Fissidens, though boasting of 424 species, needs but thirty-two pages for their enumeration. In this genus nine species beginning with the letters "k" or "1" appear to have been omitted, suggesting the loss of a page of the author's MS. Other large genera, with their respective totals of species, are Dicranum (179), Ectropothecium (170), Grimmia (123), and Hookeria (234).— A. G. Late of arrival, but none the less welcome, are two parts of Mons. Venance Payot's Florule du Mont-Blanc (Phmtes Cryptogames
