| 471that there were still more. Your arrangements
of Groups [?] [?] as
a [working?] basis for study; but I hardly
think it a very worked improvement on
the best of previous arrangements so far
as indicating [real?] 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 [?] regardless their [?] and
other phases of their life history. However, I
endorse your arrangements of groups as on
the whole equally satisfactory with that of
[other?] authors. Perhaps your book is a little
too comprehensive for present use as a
text-book in our higher schools and
even in work of our colleges as Botany
is at present taught; but in the hands
of a competent teacher I think it is | 471that there were still more. Your arrangements
of Groups [?] [?] as
[is?] [?] [?] for study; but I hardly
think it a very worked improvement on
the best of previous arrangements so far
as indicating [?] affinities is concerned.
For instance, I do not think
the difference in the [?] state between
[?] and [?] is
sufficient to place them so [?] [?] where
we take into account their resemblance in
their [?] state, coupled with one want
of [?] regardless their [?] – and
other [?] of their life history. However, I
endorse your arrangements of groups as on
the whole equally satisfactory with that of
[other?] authors. Perhaps your book is a little
too comprehensive for present use as a
text-book in our higher schools and
even in work of our colleges as Botany
is at present taught; but in the hands
of a competent teacher I think it is |
