THE NOMENCLATURE OF BRITISH PLANTS 243 



although Schinz and Thellung, in "Bull. Herb. Boiss.," p. 506, 

 reject this and some other names, which they term " tot- 

 geboren." In this particular instance they use Silene vnlgaris, 

 Moench, but I should prefer to follow the plan followed by 

 Rendle and Britten in using the earliest specific name, even 

 if it had not been generally adopted. Statice Armeria, L., 

 it should be S. maritima, Mill. is not British, nor are Rumex 

 aquaticus, L., and Carex. vitilis, Fries. Valerianella rimosa, 

 Bast., is older than V. Auricula, DC. Cephalanthera Dania- 

 sonium (Mill.) is rejected by Rendle and Britten in favour of 

 C. grandifiora, S. F. Gray, but with this I do not concur. Two 

 obvious errors in my paper are Polygonum sagittatum, Gilib., 

 which was a misprint for Fagopyrum sagittatum, Gilib. (it is 

 correctly given on p. 218); the other is Hordeum bulbosum, 

 L., which was a lapsus calami for H. nodosum, L. 



H. Schinz and A. Thellung in "Bull. Herb. Boiss.," I.e., also 



adopt some names used by me in the " Annals " instead of 



those used in Rendle and Britten's List, e.g. Ranunculus 



fozniculaceus, Gilib., instead of R. divaricatus, Schrank, and 



Galiiim liercynicum, Weig., instead of G. saxatile, L. 



I cannot follow Rendle and Britten in using the name 

 Myosotis scorpioides, L., for M.palustris ; but on the contrary, 

 following the English custom, since the var. a in the " Species 

 Plantarum," of M. scorpioides, L., is arvensis (if this name be 

 retained), I should write M. scorpioides, L., vice M. arvensis. 

 There is also this advantage, that in rejecting M. arvensis, 

 Hill, we get rid of a most ambiguous name, since it was 

 partly, if not wholly, M. versicolor. M. palustris, Hill, was 

 the Water Forget-me-not, and is well defined. To go into a 



o o 



detailed criticism of the " Plant List " would now take up too 

 much space and time, but one may point out that Ononis 

 reclinata is wrongly omitted and Ophioglossum lusitanicum 

 wrongly included. Only those who have worked at the 

 subject know how extremely difficult it is ; to prepare a list 

 without errors is well-nigh impossible, and even then the 

 names selected may, according to the standpoint adopted, be 

 rejected for several reasons. This much may be said, that 

 Britten and Rendle, Janchen, and Schinz and Thellung still 

 differ widely in their choice of names. The latter authors, I 

 think correctly, use Arabis scabra, AIL, instead of A. stricta 



