As horticulturists, we may be proud of the want which has called for a new edition of this well-known work. The author, we need scarcely remark, stands at the head of the science as an authority, and, in the getting-up of our cata-logues and lists of plants and trees, we should be glad to see this work generally recognized as the standard of nomenclature. At present, we suffer much from a confusion of names. In a catalogue now before us, emanating from a house we should have supposed knew better, we find "Zizyphus volubilis, fifty cents," and, in another page of the same, "Berchemia volubilis, seventy-five cents" - both names having been given, by different botanists, to the same plant. A work like this under review, has become essential to every nurseryman who would keep pace with the high character his business is now attaining, not only for the detection and avoidance of errors like that alluded to in our friend's catalogue, but also to enable him to obtain the information of the plants and trees of his own country, every nurseryman of any pretension ought to possess.

Looking at the work horticulturally, we are disposed to join in with those botanists whom the author tells us " may find some reason to complain of the general omission of synonyms;" but, in reality, the work is not so very deficient in this respect. For instance, in describing Magnolia umbrella, he tells us it is the same as M. tripetela, and M. Fraseri the same as M. anriculata. Changes similar to these are very common throughout the work, and it will take a great deal of " nerve" to make our catalogues correspond with them, as the rejected names are so widely diffused; but, as these names are generally acquiesced in by botanists as the more correct designations, it will be easier to correct the errors the loose descriptions that Pursh, Michaux, and Rafinesque, have bequeathed to us now, than at any future time.

In looking carefully through the volume, and comparing the list of the most beautiful of our native trees and plants with our nurserymen's catalogues, we are disposed to hold a higher opinion of our cultivators' tastes in the matter of "natives" than we think is generally assumed. Though there are certainly some very fine things yet to be brought under cultivation, there is not a greater number of neglected beauties in proportion to the extent of our flora, than could be found in similar comparison with a foreign catalogue and the flora of its proprietor's country. We are pleased to note this, especially as we know that the taste for our own beautiful trees is daily increasing.

With regard to the manner in which the author has completed his task, it scarcely becomes us to pass an opinion. To our mind, however, some of the kinds he has thrown together as being specifically identical, or mere varieties of the same species, we should hold distinct; while others which he regards as distinct, we should imagine to be of the same species.

Betula populifolia, for instance, seems to us to be divided from B. alba by far more marked characters than divides 2?. excelsa from B. lutea,- Quercus olivae-formis, Dr. Gray considers to have been made out of an immature specimen of Q. macrocarpa. We have an opinion that Q. bicolor also has a strong leaning that way also. To a practical man, the leaves of the oaks afford but little opportunity of readily distinguishing the species. Quercus tinctoria and Q. coccinea, for instance, we have found to run into each other in every character, except that the flesh of the acorn is, in the Black Oak, orange, and, in the Scarlet, white. The leaves of the Black Oak do not, we believe, ever turn scarlet, but the other kind has not always got them so.

We have only to say that, though strictly a botanical work, we cannot do a better service to the gardening world than to recommend every lover of trees or plants to procure and study a copy. The price we paid for it was two dollars.