In looking over the last Report of the Department of Agriculture, nothing was so encouraging as the progress in scientific phraseology visible over the entire volume. Whether the information itself is reliable, it is not now my purpose to inquire. On the regular staff of the department there is a chemist and entomologist, but we see no record of a botanist. Is botanical science, then, of third-rate importance toward the development of the agricultural resources of this wide continent ?

The chemist, however, does up the botanical matter in addition to his chemical labors, for we have a chapter on the "Grape Disease in Europe." He states that the literature of the grape disease is meager, and enumerates several sources from which he has collected material, but we fear he has not been very assiduous in his search; we could point him to many much more prolific sources of information.

The deductions respecting the probable identity of several distinct forms of parasitic fungi may do very well coming from an amateur in botany, but they will appear absurd to those who give some attention to the study of cryptogamic plants. In three separate parts of the Report the subject of fungi is treated with the same absence of scientific knowledge. Can no botanist be found to contribute to the Report ?

R. R. S