290 BOTANICAL INFORMATION. 
appear to have been taken to form a complete list of the native 
flowering plants and ferns of Great Britain.” This little 
compliment, paid to the labours of those who compiled the 
Catalogue, has been strangely made the subject of censure in a 
recent number of the * Phytologist,” (a work not always dis- 
tinguished by courtesy of style) ; where, after speaking of the 
* Nomenclature? of Mr. Edward Newman, as employed in 
the first edition of his * History of British Ferns," and pro- 
mulgated in 1839-40,—the reviewer assures us, “ there was 
a general denunciation of changes so radical and so complete;" 
but, after the appearance of Mr. John Smith's paper on the 
same subject, * Botanists, who one month proclaimed the 
absurdity of Mr. Newman’s innovations, were seen the fol- 
lowing month bending the supple knee to the same innova- 
tions;" and * Dr. Balfour and Mr. Babington, by adopting the 
alterations, were the means of disseminating them from John 
O’Groat’s to the Land’s End.” It seems the author of the 
British Flora did not bend the supple knee to the innova- 
tions, and the reviewer proceeds: * But in the midst of its 
successful career, the new nomenclature met a most decided 
check in the publication of the fifth edition of Sir W. J. 
. Hooker's British Flora, wherein we were astonished to find 
the changes introduced by Mr. Newman, not only fathered 
upon the authors of the * Edinburgh Catalogue, but the new 
names given as synonymes, and the old nomenclature restored 
in all its glory.* : 
* It is far fom being our general intention to notice remarks made in 
reviews of Books: but the Editor of this Journal, as the Author of the 
** British Flora," must in justice to himself declare that he is not aware 
that he has in any way acted unfairly by Mr. Newman. He presumes 
by the expression of “ fathering the changes introduced by Mr. Newman 
upon the authors of the Edinburgh Catalogue," it is meant to imply 
he has given to those gentlemen a credit for names (“a nomenclature") 
which is due to Mr. Newman alone. But surely no one will 
that to bethe case, who has seen the little explanation in the preface to the 
British Flora, (ed. 5, p. viii.) It was never meant to imply that the Editors 
of the Catalogue were the authors of those names: and really upon looking 
at the places among the Ferns where the “ Edinb. Cat." is quoted, the — 
difference of names is so trifling that it is marvellous how such a char&€ —— 
