Abstract
MR. EDGEWORTH informs us in the preface that this work is a considerably altered edition of a paper laid before the Linnean Society last year, but withdrawn by the author, on account of his omitting to notice the work of other botanists, British and foreign, on the same subject. The work chiefly consists of plates with the explanations and a list of forms of pollen figured by other authors, as well as some general remarks on the forms of pollen in different families. The figures are all drawn to scale, are fairly done, and there can be little doubt that the microscopist who loves pretty objects will promptly avail himself of Mr. Edgeworth's assistance in following up the subject. Very much valuable information is given in this book and it cannot fail to be useful to the scientific botanist. We feel, however, that Mr. Edgeworth does not wholly command our confidence on account of certain blunders he makes. Most of the German botanists have their names misspelt. Thus he always calls Purkinje “Purjinke,” Naegeli “Nagili,” Rosanoff “Romanoff,” Pollender “Pollenden,” Luerssen “Leursen.” Surely if Mr. Edgeworth had been familiar with the writings of these men, he from merely seeing their names on their papers, would not have blundered so strangely. Then we feel rather doubtful about his references as we have failed to find any paper by “Nagili” in Pringsheim's “Jahrbücher,” vol. iii. Naegeli's name does not occur at all in the index to the first ten volumes of Pringsheim's “Jahrbücher.” The third volume of the “Jahrbücher” was published in 1863, while Naegeli's paper on the development of the pollen was published at Zurich in 1842. We think the student would hardly find the papers of “Purjinke in Latin,” “Fritsche in German” “Pollenden Bonn.” Why not refer to the proper title of the book or paper? Pollender has published two papers on pollen, at Bonn, one in 1867, in quarto; another in 1868, in folio. To which does Mr. Edgeworth refer? Then surely it is too late in the day to describe the pollen of the pine as consisting of “2 grains of pollen connected as it were by a broad band” (p. 8); or the pollen of some Acanthaceæ as existing “in a peculiar coil, which can be unwound,” in both cases the peculiar development of the extine being overlooked. Altogether, then, the work has slightly disappointed us, but perhaps we should not judge so much by the blemishes we notice in it, as by the undoubted worth both to the amateur and scientific botanist of the figures and references.
Pollen.
By M. P. Edgeworth. Illustrated with 446 figures. (London: Hardwicke and Bogue, 1877.)
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pollen . Nature 16, 499 (1877). https://doi.org/10.1038/016499a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/016499a0