TOPOGRAPHICAL BOTANY OF SCOTLAND 93 



(3) HUDSON AND GOSSE, "The Rotifera." Two vols. and supplement, London, 



1889. 



(4) MILNE, W., ' Defectiveness of the Eye-spot, etc., 1 ' Proc. Phil. Soc. 



Glasgow," vol. xvii., 1885-6, p. 134. 



(5) MURRAY, J., 'Some Scottish Rotifers (Bdelloida),' "Ann. Scot. Nat. Hist," 



1903, p. 1 60. 



(6) MURRAY, J., ' Bdelloid Rotifera of the Forth Area,' " Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. 



Edin.," vol. xvi., 1906, p. 215. 



(7) SCOTT AND LINDSAY, ' Micro-flora and Micro-fauna of the Upper Elf Loch, 



Braids,' "Trans. Edin. Field Nat. and Micros. Soc.," vol. iii., 1897-8, 

 pp. 381-383. 



(8) TATEM, T. G., ' New Species of Microscopic Animals,' " Quart. Journ. Micr. 



Sci.," N.S., vol. vii., 1867, p. 252. 



(9) WEBER, E. F., 'Fauna Rotatorienne du Bassin du Leman.' "Rev. Suisse 



de Zool.." t. v., 1898, p. 536. 



ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE TOPO- 

 GRAPHICAL BOTANY OF SCOTLAND. 



By JAMES W. H. TRAIL, A.M., M.D., F.R.S., F.L.S. 



( Continued from p. 48.) 



HlERACIUM, L. 



In the "Annals of Scottish Natural History," 1902, pp. 244- 

 250, I gave an enumeration of the Hieracia, following the " London 

 Catalogue," ed. 9, with a statement of the distribution, compiled 

 from " Topographical Botany," ed. 2, and from the later records of 

 those who had devoted special study to the group. Since that paper 

 was issued there have appeared three important works dealing with 

 these plants, viz., in November 1902 and November 1903, 'A 

 Revision of the British Hieracia' in Mr. F. N. Williams's " Prodromus 

 Florae Britannicae " ; in 1904 the ninth edition of Babington's well- 

 known "Manual of British Botany," edited by Messrs. H. and J. 

 Groves, in which is an " entirely new account of the genus, drawn 

 up under the direction of Mr. F. J. Hanbury, from his notes and 

 specimens, by Miss R. F. Thomson"; and in 1905 "The British 

 Hieracia," by Rev. W. R. Linton, who has made use of Mr. Williams's 

 "Revision," and "has received most valuable help from Mr. F. J. 

 Hanbury, Revs. A. Ley, E. F. Linton, and E. S. Marshall, and from 

 Mr. Chas. Bailey for specimens lent." 



Of these monographs the first often differs markedly from the 

 conclusions embodied in the " London Catalogue " as to the group- 

 ings and extent of the "species." The second is almost identical 

 in classification with the " London Catalogue " except in a few 

 details. The third differs less from the " London Catalogue " than 



