| 184that there were still more. Your arrangment
of groups [may?] [?] as
a working basis for study; but I hardly
think it a very marked improvement on
the best of previous arrangements so far
as indicating [?] [affinities?] is concerned.
For instance, I do not think
the difference in the vegetative state between
[?] and [?] is
sufficient to place them so wide apart, where
we take into account their resemblance in
their [?] state, coupled with [one want?]
of knowledge regarding their sexuality and
other phases of their life history. However, I
endorse your arrangement of groups as on
the whole equally satisfactory with that of
[these?] [authors?]. Perhaps your book is a little
too comprehensive for [?] use as a
text book in our higher schools and
even in most of our colleges, as Botany
is at prsent thought; but in the hands
of a competent teacher I think it is | 184that there were still more. [Yours?] [is?]
[?] [?] groups [?] [?] as
a working basis for study; but– I hardly
think it a very marked improvement on
the best of [?] [?] – so far
as indicating [?] [?] is concerned.
For instance, I do not think
the difference in the vegetative state between
[?] and [?] is
sufficient to place them so wide apart, where
we take into account their resemblance in
their [?] state, coupled with one want
of knowledge regarding their [??] and
other phases of their life history. However, I
endorse your arrangement of groups as on
the whole equally satisfactory with that of
[their?] [anthers?]. Perhaps your book is a little
too comprehensive for [?] use as a
text book in our higher schools and
even in [?] of our colleges, as Botany
is at prsent thought; but in the hands
of a competent teacher I think it is |
