Book Reviews: Horticulture

All About Cycads:
The Biology of the Cycads Norstog, Knut J., and Trevor J. Nichols, 1998. ISBN 0-8014-3033-X (cloth US$145) 363pp. Cornell University Press, Sage House, 512 E. State Street, Ithaca NY 14850.
- To botanists, cycads are intensely interesting, above all for their great geological age and for the many primitive anatomical and morphological features exhibited. Plant a grove of half a dozen cycads, and you have the feeling of walking in a forest of the Mesozoic.

However, age and primitiveness of (some) organs are only two of the features characterizing cycads. The enigmatic toxicity, the symbiosis with cyanobacteria, all contribute to give the group a unique position between the "lower" and "higher" plants and at the same time to place them outside the phylogenetic mainstream leading to angiosperms.

Being tropic (a few subtropic), cycads came to the knowledge of European botanists rather later, and their structure was in the beginning not understood. Even the great Linnaeus classified them with the palms - because of the external similarity - and it was left to Robert Brown in 1828 to recognize them as - sort of - gymnosperms.

Since then, cycads have had a high status not only with botanists, but unfortunately also with horticulturists. Cycad collectors have been no less ruthless in pursuit of their material than other collectors; many species are endangered for that reason, and some of them on the verge of extinction. Encephalartos woodii is unknown (exterminated) in the wild, and in cultivation, male specimens only are known. Fortunately they, at any rate are easily propagated vegetatively. Apart from the horticultural use, cycads are also endangered by the general destruction of tropical vegetation and, in Florida, at some time, by the production of "sago" meal from Zamia stems. In spite of their toxicity, cycads have on a small scale been used for culinary purposes also elsewhere.

Cycad monographs have existed before. Chamberlain in 1919 gave a comprehensive survey of the group, and there have been others later. But as knowledge advances, they become outdated. The present book is a most comprehensive text, taking up data from taxonomy, geography, paleontology, morphology, anatomy, ecology etc. Obviously, even within 380 pages it is not possible to go in depth with such a wide theme. What is lost in penetration is more than compensated for by breadth of approach.

The book is in many ways charmingly amateurish. The authors' extensive knowledge of the plants is not always matched by a similar insight in causal relations with regard to the effect of ecological etc. factors. The lack of relevant exact data in various such aspects is compensated for by more hypothetical statements: "it appears that...... observations "suggest that" etc. Being pronounced by scientists with such a profound knowledge of the group, these statements are nevertheless much better than nothing, and the reader may safely assume that they are very close to explaining actual conditions, even if descriptions are often qualitative instead of quantitative.

The authors have dedicated the book "to those whose main interests are the fields of conservation and horticulture, rather than academic biology, avoiding as far as possible some of the worst pedantries of scientific form and the more obscure botanical terms." However, this program, which has been followed throughout, does not, definitely not, mean that the book does not also convey a wealth of exact information for the botanist at large.

One of the most exciting parts of the book is the one dealing with pollination, most of which is based on Norstog's recent investigations. The old idea - feeling may be a better word - was that 1. cycads are very ancient and exhibit many primitive characteristics, and 2. abiotic pollination is more primitive than biotic, ergo cycads must be abiotically pollinated, i.e. wind pollinated. It took a remarkably long time before this simplistic view was superseded in spite of 1. a very strong odor suggesting olfactoric pollinator attraction and 2. the simple fact that in many cycads the "female" organs are so well protected that no wind could blow a pollen grain into them. Admittedly, in 1773 Thunberg noticed weevils in cycad inflorescences, but considering the state of understanding of the pollination process at that time, one cannot reproach him for neglecting that observation. Even the great authority on cycads, C.J. Chamberlain, in the 1930s emphatically denied that cycads could be insect pollinated, and it remained for the post-war period, above all to Norstog himself, to definitely explode this narrow-minded view and demonstrate insect pollination, not only as a possibility, but as a must in cycads. Interesting, these primitive plants are pollinated by a group of, as pollination goes, primitive insects, viz. beetles. After all, simplistic syllogisms are not always totally off the point.

Norstog's original observations, published in 1980, have been followed by many later publications, and the weevil pollination of cycads is now a well established fact. Actually, the existence of wind pollination has been seriously questioned, even in Cycas, the reproductive organs of which are freely exposed, but stroboscopic observations indicate the feasibility of pollen deposition even at such an unadapted structure as the massive female cycad blossom.

The typical pollination process starts with olfactoric attraction (a primitive feature!). Both sexes of the weevil are attracted to the male inflorescence, where they mate, feed and breed. Emerging, covered by pollen, the young beetles also visit female cones, apparently attracted by scent, but they do not eat or in other ways utilize these. The pollination process certainly represents an ancient coevolution between blossom and insect, and there are still some questions not clearly solved.

Seed dispersal is much simpler. The toxicity of cycads comes in as a complicating factor. The outer fleshy seed coat at any rate is less toxic than the rest, but details are still somewhat obscure. Obvious is that a great portion of the seeds are eaten by many different animals (and also have been so in earlier epochs), apparently without any toxic effects.

An important part of the book is a catalog of all known cycad species. There is an identification key to genera, but species are geographically arranged, which sometimes makes it difficult to find a species without consulting the Index.

I mentioned a certain amateurism in the book's treatment of problems biological. The book contains rather broad excursus on background phenomena, to a much greater extent than would be found in a strictly scientific treatment where such facts would be presumed known. This on one side inflates the book, on the other it makes it readable and enjoyable also for the so-called lay reader towards which it aims (cf. the dedication quoted above). This broader general scientific informational standard should contribute to make the book known in much wider circles than would a cut-and-dry scientific text. In this way, hopefully the book will contribute not only to the understanding of cycads as organisms, but will also contribute to the preservation of this fascinating group of greetings from a time long, long bygone.

We cannot all be cycadologists, but these plants are of such great importance, and the book so basic that every botanical institute should be happy to include it in its library, both for the scientific personnel and, even more, for the students. - Knut Feagri, Botanisk Inst., Bergen, Norway

Pinus (Pinaceae). Farjon, Aljos and Styles, Brian T., 1997. ISBN 0-89327-411-9, (cloth US$31.00), 291 pp. Flora Neotropica, Monograph 75, The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York, 1045-85126. - Among the conifers, representatives of the genus Pinus are easily recognizable and form a natural group that is distinct from all other genera assigned to the Pinaceae. While understanding of the silvicultural, physiological, and ecological aspects of the economically important species is good, the taxonomy and systematics of the genus is poor. This volume is the first major taxonomic revision of the Mexican, central American, and Caribbean pines since that of Shaw (1909).

The introduction provides the reader with a good overview of our current understanding of the Pine branch morphology, ecology, paleobotany, and biogeography of the genus, but more importantly, the authors speak to two significant points. First, is the variation encountered within the definition of the species concept that have been used in the various circumscriptions of the genus and concomitant range in the number of species recognized within the genus (66120 species worldwide and 19-58 in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean). Second, is the problems created in having people other than properly trained taxonomists conducting taxonomic research. While these items may at first seem trivial, the effects of these minor transgressions have become the "thorns" in the side of monographic research. The over 400 names that have been proposed for the 47 species and 20 intraspecific taxa recognized in this volume is a good example of these seemingly small mistakes.

The authors have gone into considerable detail on the history of individuals who collected pines from 1785 to the present and some of the more important collections of pines made from Mexico, central America, and the Caribbean. It also reveals the long tradition of botany and interest in pines from these regions. Systems of classification for the pines are numerous and follow a system that either divides the genus into two sub-generic groupings or more than two groups. Although we have yet to determine which system of classification most accurately reflects the taxonomy and phylogeny of the genus, classification systems that divide the genus into Pinus and Strobus sub-genera remain the most widely accepted. The authors recognize the trend of continuing reductionism in the species concept seen in plant taxonomy and especially conifer taxonomy. Though this should not necessarily be viewed as being detrimental in light of continuing technological improvements, it is the application of these new tools and techniques to partial data sets which is frustrating. The abundance of these incomplete revisions in the literature clearly illustrates the need for up-to-date detailed taxonomic revisions and lack of qualified taxonomists who understand how taxonomic research should be conducted.

The discussion on morphology and anatomy, karyology, and reproductive biology, with further contributions by I.D. Gourlay on wood anatomy, M.H. Kurmann on pollen morphology, and J.S. Birks on monoterpenes provide a comprehensive review of the features that distinguish the genus and useful for taxonomic purposes. While the intergeneric relationships within the Pinaceae are not yet fully resolved, the basal position of Pinus within the family seems to be commonly accepted. However, we are still without a classification scheme that best reflects the phylogeny of the genus.

Nevertheless, the authors continue to refine their previous classification schemes and present a cladistic analysis for the Mexican, central American, and Caribbean species assigned to the sub-genus Strobus. I was pleasantly surprised to read about the evolution of Pinus and discover that aspects of their fossil history had been successfully woven into the discussion. The discussion on the ecology of the pines is very general and includes aspects of their distribution, community structure, mycorrhizal associations, and diseases/predators. The authors include a useful table that segregates the species on the basis of regional distribution and altitude. A short discussion on uses and conservation efforts follows.

The systematic treatment forms the bulk of the volume. Dichotomous keys segregate the species into subgenera, sections, and sub-sections using vegetative and reproductive features alone. An additional key separating the species based on their distributions proposed in the "Ecology" section of the volume is included. Each species includes a brief description, distribution map, key to varieties, ecology, synonyms, uses, specimens examined, and general remarks. Apart from a few typesetting errors and mediocre line drawings, I found this volume a pleasure to read and packed with useful information. This book is a "must have" for anyone interested in conifer taxonomy. - Ben A. LePage, Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6316

African Orchids in the Wild and in Cultivation La Croix, Isobyl and Eric, 1997. ISBN 0-88192-4059 (cloth US$39.95) 423 pp. Timber Press, Inc. 133 SW Second Avenue, Suite 450, Portland OR 9720-43527. - Many orchid books deal with cultivation or phytogeography and/or taxonomy. Those that cover "the wild" orchids usually concentrate on a specific geographical or political region. Volumes on cultivation usually deal with a multitude of orchids from several parts of the world. Books which address the orchids of a region in "the wild" and their cultivation are rare. A Orchid flower danger faced by such a book is that it may fall between the cracks: Growers may not be interested in a book on "the wild" whereas those looking for a work on natural habitats will not buy one on cultivation. It will be a pity if this will happen to African Orchids in the Wild and in Cultivation because it is a good, well-rounded book on both "the wild" and "cultivation." Its contents are clear and informative, but the title is misleading because only some African orchids are covered by the book. This is made clear in table 4.1 (pages 45-48) but should have been part of the title as, for example "Some African Orchids. Not covering all African orchids is hardly a fault, but failing to mention this fact up front is.

Africa is a huge continent. Therefore chapters one (Geography and Climate), two (Vegetation) and three (Countries of Sub-Saharan Africa) are most welcome and very enlightening. They are well written, clear, and informative. In fact my 13.5 years-old son Jonathan could probably use this part of the book as a source for some of his homework assignments. Still, and unfortunately, the content of chapter 3 is not consistent with the book title. If the book is about "African" orchids why describe only subsaharan countries. Or, if it covers only subsaharan species why not change the title accordingly?

Chapter 4 deals with classification, a subject which seems to find its way in all orchid books (sometimes even including mine) regardless of whether is needed or not. Mercifully the classification chapter in this book is short (pp. 43-48). It is interesting and the subject is presented well.

Cultivation (chapter 5) is treated intelligently. The chapter goes beyond merely listing cultivation requirements. Instead it discusses natural conditions and relates them to the requirements of specific orchids. The chapter also touches on aspects often ignored in other books. One of these is the temperature of irrigation water which should "be at ambient temperature" to prevent problems. After making this statement the authors describe a simple method for attaining appropriate irrigation water temperatures. My only question here pertains to rain water in nature. Is rain at ambient temperature when it falls and if not does it have the same effect on orchids as cold irrigation water (at least in my experience rain is always colder than ambient, but then I was rain-soaked only in Asia, Europe and the Americas, never in Africa)?

A second subject is that of light. Most books limit themselves to describing light intensity requirements as ,high," "low...... shade...... bright," and similar terms or in foot candles (a questionable non SI unit of measurement). Here the authors correlate foot candles with word descriptions. This should prove to be very helpful for growers of African and other orchids.

Coverage of day length is third in this list. One of the legendary figures in orchid science, Prof. R. E. Holttum, discussed day length as it relates to orchid cultivation almost 50 years ago in his books and articles on the Singapore and Malesian tropics (which happen to be my favorite part of the world outside the U. S. A.). Few if any authors of cultivation books have covered the subject since Holttum. It is therefore commendable to note that a paragraph on page 55 deals with day length. The authors are correct in stating that "there is relatively little annual variation in day length in the tropics." However they are wrong in asserting that "day length does not appear to have significance in triggering flowering in African orchids." Research on African orchids (primarily by Prof. W. W. Sanford, but also by others in Africa) has shown that a number of African orchids are photoperiodic. Given the fact that CAM in orchids seems to occur in equal proportions among orchids in all tropics (and perhaps even the world) it is safe to assume that the same may be true for photoperiodism.

Pests and diseases (chapter 6) are covered adequately. However, details on specific measures and chemicals is lacking whereas biological control is emphasized strongly.

Orchid propagation is dealt with in chapter 7. Some growers will probably be successful if they use this chapter as a source of information, but many others would probably appreciate either more details or several specific references or both. Table 7.1 on the time required for fruits to develop and ripen and seeds to become viable should be of considerable benefit to growers. Two problems with this table are terminology and, in two cases durations. The orchid fruit is a capsule, not a pod as indicated in the caption to table 7. 1. And, I wonder how can it be that in Aerangis verdickii II months a needed for a green (i. e., immature) fruit to develop but only eight for it to mature. A similar inconsistency (six and 2.5 respectively) is associated with Mystacidium brayboniae. Careful copy editing and proofreading could have noticed these problems.

The chapter (9) on hybridization is fun to read. I have no quibbles with its contents, but my view is that classical orchid hybridization is more art and intuition (plus some luck) than science and therefore cannot be taught.

Part two gives "Plant Descriptions A to Z." The descriptions are clear, informative and accompanied by good drawings and photographs. Sections on larger genera like Aerangis include keys to species. This is a nice touch even if I did not have a chance to try the keys.

There are two appendices in the book. Appendix 1 provides useful but not enough addresses of orchid societies and publication. For example The Malayan Orchid Review (Singapore) and The Malaysian Orchid Bulletin (Malaysia), two publications which deal with tropical orchids (native and those from other areas including Africa), are not listed. Neither are Die Orchidee (Germany), The Australian Orchid Review, and Japanese publications.Another orchid

Most helpful are the addresses of CITES and phytosanitary offices sources of biological control (but these are limited to the U. K. which is puzzling for a book published in the U. S. A. and suggests that copy editing could have been better). But, I wonder why are there no sources for standard fungicides and pesticides. Are the authors pushing biological control and ignoring chemicals? There is also a list of nurseries which carry African orchids.

Appendix 2 lists African genera not in cultivation. Chances are that this list will change in the future if for no other reason than this books because it makes African orchids so interesting.

A helpful glossary occupies pages 358-360. It is followed by a bibliography and an index of plant names. Neither is enough. A book like this should provide a more extensive bibliography and have an index of subjects.

Consistency of formats is lacking in this book. For example, the tables are designated as X.Y (for instance, the first table in chapter 4 is listed as "4.1"). On the other hand figures are numbered as X-Y (in chapter 3 figures are designated as "3-1" and "3-2"). Both should have been listed with a hyphen (the more common format) or a period between the numerals. Not one with "." and the other with...... A good copy editor and/or a careful proofreader would have caught this admittedly minor point. I am only rasing it because good copy editing still seems to elude Timber Press. This is a pity since the quality of their books has certainly improved greatly during the last few years.

A helpful and welcome feature in the book is a section (not numbered as a chapter or appendix) which contains clearandinformativeillustrationsof flowers,leavesand inflorescences. The figures are numbered as "I....... but the section precedes the first chapter and even part one of the book. I think that these illustrations should have been made part of the glossary or included in a separate appendix. Again, this is a copy-editing failure.

No book (not even mine) is perfect. This one is not either, but it is really good. It interested me and should prove to be of considerable value (scientifically, horticulturally and financially because its price is certainly reasonable) for those who grow, want to start growing, or aim to learn about some African orchids. - Joseph Arditti, Department of Developmental and Cell Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2300

Orchid Names and their Meanings. H Mayr.1998. ISBN 3-904144-07-3. A. R. G. Gantner Verlag K.-G. FL9490 Vaduz, Distributed by Koeltz Scientific Books, P. O. Box 1360, D61453 Königstein, Germany - Estimates of the size of the Orchidaceae vary considerably depending on who does the estimating, when and for what purpose. The high estimate is 700 (or perhaps even more) genera. A low figure is ca. 400. Species number is estimated at between 20,000 and 32,000. And, depending on the estimate and estimator, Orchidaceae is assumed to be smaller or larger than Asteraceae (i. e, the second largest or largest plant family). Frankly, I think that no one really knows how many orchids there are. One reason is that some orchids are yet to be discovered. Another reason is that classical taxonomists are constantly splitting and lumping species and/or genera, reducing "valid" names to synonymy, raising "synonyms" to validity, and creating new taxa while eliminating others. There are many reasons for this morass, but they are beyond the scope of this review. All we can hope for is that with time molecular taxonomy will produce hard data which will lead to solid determinations (rather than ones based on opinion) which will bring order into this chaotic field. Furthermore, the complex nature of molecular taxonomy may finally drive out the untrained, ego driven hobbyists or "private" experts who lack knowledge but classify and name orchids, manage to publish their drivel in non peer reviewed journals (the nomenclature code does not require peer reviewed publications) and add to the confusion.

Be all as it may, those of us who work with orchids have to contend with a huge number of generic and specific names. Of course these names do not really matter. Orchids do not have names. What they have are designations given to them by people. In other words, people create names and attach them to orchids. These names have meanings which may reflect features of the plant, be indications of geography, honor a person and/ or refer to other factors. All are in Latin and/or ancient Greek (because they are dead languages and not subject to change) and Latinized and/or "Greekized." Most of us do not know enough Latin and/or Yet another orchid Greek (and neither do many of the name givers as evidenced by the "ana" vs "iana" fiasco of a few years ago), but would like to understand what the names mean. This book, a translation from German, was written to make such understanding possible and it does so with mixed results.

Instead of chapters in the usual sense Orchid Names has numbered sections which like orchid names seem to proliferate in some instances, but not in others. For example, the section on names in Latin and Greek has a single number (I.) whereas the fourth one goes as far as 4.4.5. Some textbooks use this method to number and identify chapters and sections, but I find it clumsy especially in a book that does not have an index. There are much better ways to organize a book. If the author did not do it the publisher should have, but obviously they did not. A good copy editor would have done marvels for this book.

The Introduction (section 2.) explains the purpose of the book "as a guide ... in the labyrinth of orchid names" and provides hints of problems to come with the translation. Examples are: "I have refrained to cite...... I recommend to acquire" and run on sentences. This does not detract from the information in the book, but it makes reading it unpleasant and sometimes slow. It is like carrying a conversation over an unclear and noisy long distance telephone line with someone who does not speak English well and is hard of hearing.

Section 3 deals with Latin and Greek names, explains them and thoroughly and well, and calls attention to possible pitfalls. I think that this section is quite good conceptually and as a source of information, but the poor translation gets in the way again. One example is "the ancient Phoenician harbor Tyros." I think that it should have been "Phoenician" (and that is what my word processor says) and "Tyre." Another is the sentence "In Carthage, capital of the punic nation ... the same dye was produced" which should have been "The same dye was produced in Carthage, capital of the Punic nation." There are so many other examples. They get tiring and not worth mentioning. Spelling is also a problem as for example "levaes" on page 23. Wording, too, is not always in English (i. e., the book seems to have been "translated" from German in German words and syntax, to German in English words and German syntax) as for instance "vegetative habitus"(also on p. 23) which should have been "vegetative habit" or "form." A translator with better command of English and/or a review of the manuscript by someone whose English is good and/ or careful copy editing could have improved the book immensely.

Sections 4-6 deals with naming rules, species names, grammar, gender and peculiarities. Coverage is good, explanations are clear as far as they go and examples are appropriate, but the English is woeful ("This rules" on page 32). In this section we also learn that "species names may also be derived from Christian names. " Aside from a need for correct spelling ("Christian") this sentence simply leaves out and/or may offend people of other religions who have orchids named after them. More appropriate terms would have been "surnames" and "first...... personal" or "given names." Names of orchid botanists are very evident in section 4. Some are given in full (i. e., "Tommy Trojan"), but others are not ("Tommy" or "Trojan" only). Dates of birth, death and/or activity are generally not given in conjunction with names although in some cases there is a reference to century. A proper format for listing people is "Tommy U. S. C. Trojan, 1801-1900" or "Tommy U. S. C. Trojan (1801-1900), director of the University Park orchid garden from 1840 to 1883" (I had to sneak in here my alma matter, the University of Southern California and their mascot).

The seventh section 7 starts with bad English and goes on to deal with "names which are frequently spelled wrong." This is well and good, especially since the book mentions that wrongly spelled names are valid and must be used simply because that is what a less than knowledgeable author assigned to a plant.

Pronunciation of generic names of orchids is the subject of section 8. This is useful especially since the author discusses Greek and Latin spelling and grammar. If only the English was good ... And there are idiosyncracies like "Lielia" for Laelia. This is followed by "some systematics" which seem superfluous (section 9).

Section 10 discusses the "meaning of ... names." This section is informative to some extent but it has many shortcomings. One of these is the introduction of accents of all sorts into the spelling of generic names which are usually spelled without squiggles, circles, lines and dots above or bellow letters. Another is incomplete information about people as for example Vanda stangedna (again an accent) which was named after "Stange, chief gardener of Consul Schiller in Hamburg. Initials and dates are not given for Stange and Schiller. For Brassavola (the second a being graced with an unnecessary accent) we are simply told that it was named for "Brasdvole" without any other explanation. As I remember, this genus was named after Antonio Musa (which is the Arabic version of Moses) Brassavola (no accent), a nobleman in Venice and also a botanist and Professor of Physics, Medicine and Logic. In the case of Bulbophyllum beccari we are at least given an initial ("O" which stands for Odoardo) Beccari, the Italian botanist who discovered Amorphophallus titanum in Sumatra.

"A little genetics in a Nutshell," discussions of hybrids, peloria, and multigeneric hybrids, "botanists important for orchid research" (the list of taxonomists is not complete and other areas of orchid science are ignored) come next. Section 12 gives the full names behind the abbreviation which follow orchid names as "Thou," for example. This is a useful section which would have been better with dates, good English and without the pretentiousness of adding accents to names that are usually spelled without them.

Section 14 is for the most part a "Lexical Table of Genus Names." There are lots of added and unneeded accents, but the table is useful. However, anyone who is interested in the derivation of generic names will learn that and much more from the excellent Generic Names of Orchids by R. E. Schultes and A. S. Pease (Academic Press, 1963).

Finally, section 15 (pp. 189-495) presents translations into English of species names. This list is rife with problems and therefore is not as useful as it could be. Just three examples are "Canarian Islands" for "Canary Islands," "candidus" for the much more common "candidum" and "haynaldianus" ratherthan "haynaldianum." And, there are language problems again, as for instance "Dr. u Mrs. Davidson" which should have been "Dr. and Mrs. . . "

Synonyms are the topic of section 16.1 guess that anyone is free to decide what is a synonym and what is a valid name especially since someone else will reverse any determination within a very short time just before the reversal is reversed and then re-reversed only to be changed, restored and altered again. However, I see no need for such a list in this book especially since the qualifications of the author are not obvious.

A short glossary and an inadequate list of references which uses an idiosyncratic format complete the book. There is no index.

A book like this one is needed and could be very useful for all who grow or work with orchids. Mayr clearly devoted a lot of time and effort to the compilation information and writing his book. The German version may be better, but the translation is so flawed that one should think twice before buying it. Most of all I am still bewildered by the addition of accents to many names which are usually spelled with standard unaccented and "unumlauted" letters. Why was this done? Is it simply because so many Europeans speak languages that use á, Â â, ç, Ê, ë, è, í, ó, ö, ø and other squiggly letters? Could it be an attempt to create an aura of érûdítíøn? Or.... what the heck, satis is satis.

I would be remiss in my duty as a reviewer without suggestions how the book can be improved. First, the translation must be improved. Second, most of the accents must be removed. Third, a good copy editor whose native language is English must go over the book with a fine tooth comb. Fourth, the organization of the book and numbering of sections/chapters must be revised. Fifth, initials and dates must be added to all names. Sixth, the glossary should be lengthened. Seventh, the list of synonyms requires justifications. Eighths, the list of references must be augmented and presented in standard format. Ninth, an index must be added, and Tenth, ... Àw shüçks, enough is enough. - Joseph Arditti, Department of Developmental and Cell Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2300.

Return to: | Table of Contents || Book Reviews Home Page || Previous Review || Next Page