We agree with British botanists in general, in consi dering it rather as a defect in this system, that so much stress should he laid upon the male flowers—parts of much importance certainly in the economy of vegeta tion ; but we think not well suited, in this family, for ge neric discrimination, while the fruit alone is amply suffi cient. On the Continent in general, the male flowers are still resorted to for this purpose ; but they are alto gether omitted in the British systems. It was quite na tural for Hedwig to attach much importance to the male flowers in his system, as he was the first to place beyond a doubt their nature and universality. But a British sys tem of quite recent origin, which we shall presently ex hibit, we consider much more convenient, and much more likely to last, than any into which the male flowers are admitted.
Bridel's System of Frondose Musci.
For the sake of brevity, we shall exhibit merely his essential generic characters of Musci, as given in the Analytic Table, with which the Alantissa commences.
This very ingenious system, we cannot help thinking unnecessarily encumbered with hard Greek names of subdivisions. As many of these sections contain each only a single genus, to commit to memory the name ol the sections, is, in these instances, just equivalent to learning au additional name for so many genera. We think there is sometimes an inconvenient vagueness of expression in his characters ; for instance, when he calls the peduncle of Sphagnum a fruitstalk, though its true nature had been shown in a plate, by Hedwig, 37 years before the 'Mantissa was published. Besides, several of the genera seem liable to reduction. Thus, Pleuridiuni, which is separated from Phascum by its lateral fruit, contains one European species, Phascum alternifolium of other writers ; in which, indeed, the mature fruit is lateral from innovation; but the flowers and the young fruit are undoubtedly terminal. The only other species is a plant from the Isle of France, which has much the habit of Ph. alternifolium. Bridel has marked it with the sign of doubt. If a good species, We are strongly inclined to anticipate that it will turn out a genuine Phas cum. Pyramidula contains only one species, Pyr. tetra gona, which, notwithstanding the peculiarity in the Ca lyptra mentioned in the definition, is considered by Voit as identical with Gymnostomum pyriforme. Schistidium or Bridel is Anictangium of Hooker ; and Anoectan glum of Bride! is Hooker's Hedwigia. Glyphomitrium, which contains three species, should probably be either blended with the Grimmiae, or divided between Enca lypta and Gritnrnia. Coscinodon, a genus defined by Sprengel to contain certain mosses with perforated teeth, cannot be tenable, unless the definition be amended ; as we find species with perforated teeth in Grimmia, Weis sia, Trichostomum, and Didymodon, and having the closest affinity, in habit and systematic relation, with the other species of this genera. Indeed, the genus seems to be composed entirely of species of Weissia and of Didymodon. Campylopus of Bridel has bcen formed to receive certain Dicrana, at least one Trichostomum, and some Grimmiae, with an utter disregard of the Ca lyptra, though it is defined to be " mitriform at the base laccru-fimbriate." Racomitrium contains, of well known species, chiefly those Trichostoma with the teeth divid ed. Desinatodon contains two Dicrana, and Barbula
curta ol Hedwig. But it would be tedious to go through the whole system in this manner. Under his 68 genera, Bride! has assembled 961 species, by far the greatest number hitherto published in any one work. Of these species, indeed, a considerable number will be found, on examination, to be mere varieties. Yet, even after deducting for these varieties so large a number as 160, or even 200, WC have in that work a collection of spe cies far greater than is clse%% here to be found in a single work. The want of figures, and its occasional mistakes, and vagueness in definnion, are its chief defects as a collection of species.
Bridel's references are very curious, in general ac curate, and valuable. Yet at some of them it is im possible to avoid smiling. He is very fond of referring to Adanson's Fanzines des Plantes, and not unfre quently relers to the same Adansonian nanie, plants of the most heterogeneous appearance, and belonging to genera that assort extremely ill together. Thus, to C 2 Luida are referred onc species of Splachnum ; several Trichostotna, Fissidentes, Dicrana, Tortulae, Barbulae, Neckerae, Hypna, Brya ; two species of Mnium, two of Bartramia, the Genus Octoblepharum, and some Weissiae. To Bryon are referred some Gymnostoma, some Leersiae, (Encalyptae,) several Splachna, Otle Trichostomum, one Tortula ; several Barbulae ; one Ar t Itenopterum, two Mnia, one Funaria, two Weberae, and one 1\leesia. To Green are referred the genus Phascum ; some Sphagna, and some Grimmiae. To Ilarisona are referred some Hedwigiae (Anictangia Gymnostoma), some Fissidentes, several Neckerae and Fontinalis Squamosa ! It is unnecessary to multiply ex amples, and indeed these are the most remarkable. The amount of the incongruity does not consist merely in the assemblage of heterogeneous species under the same genus, but in the breaking clown of natural genera, that their species might be divided, and parcels of them blended under one Adansonian name, with parcels of species belonging to other genera, having no imaginable affinity with them. Thus, while all the other Splachna, known to Atkinson, seem, according to Bridel, to belong to the genus Bryon, what is there in Splachnum am pullaceum, to make it, with so many plants totally unlike it, a Luida? By what possible art can species of Gym nostomum, Fissidens, Neckera, and Fontinalis squamosa, be comprehended under one generic definition ? And this allotment of F. squamosa is the more singular, as all the other species of Fontinalis belong to Adanson's genus of the same name. Luida, as represented by Bride], is merely a mass of confusion.
It is quite evidebt, that it would be in vain to search for the reason of these very whimsical arrangements in the meagre definitions given in the Families des Plantes ; and that, if the citations be worth any thing, they must have been obtained either from a Herbarium, or from a pupil of Adanson, thoroughly imbued with the notions of his master. We wish that Bride] had in this instance referred to his real authority, instead of referring to a book which gives us no assistance in unravelling these intricacies. But, whatever the real authority was, we would hope, for the honour of the French naturalist, that it had been very often mistaken.