THE LONDON CATALOGUE OF BRITISH PLANTS 109 



MR. DRUCE'S NOTES ON THE LONDON CATALOGUE OF 

 BRITISH PLANTS, gth ed. 1895. By ARTHUR 

 BENNETT, F.L.S. 



In the article by Mr. G. C. Druce in the January 

 " Annals " there are a few matters that require to be modified 

 respecting genera that I was responsible for. I do not 

 pretend to discuss many of the controversial matters, as there 

 is no finality to some. 



Mr. Druce suggests that Carex Vahlii, Schkur ("Riedgr.," 

 87, iSoi), is older than C. alpina, Swartz. I do not see how 

 this can be, when Swartz's name appeared in Liljeblad's 

 " Utkast till en Svensk Flora," ed. 2, 28, 1798. The date of 

 1803 I do not understand. 



With respect to Carex punctata, Gaud., I presume, from 

 Mr. Druce saying that C. pallidior, Degl., is the oldest name, 

 that he has seen a specimen so named by Degland ? if not, 

 the name is not worth anything. As to C. diluta, Bieb., and 

 C. punctata, Gaud., being the same ; I have seen the original 

 specimens of Gaudin, and also specimens named by Bieber- 

 stein, and they are absolutely identical ! The fact of their 

 being kept separate in Richter's work and in the " Inde-x 

 Kewensis " is nothing, as Mr. Jackson has often personally 

 repudiated any idea of so dealing with many species, always 

 saying, " This must be left to monographers.'' 



Mr. Druce says that Robert Brown's genus Listera is 

 antedated by Rafinesque's genus Dipliyllum ; if he will refer to 

 my friend Morong's " A new species of Listera," in " Contribu- 

 tions from the Herbarium of Columbia College," No. 33, i 893, 

 he will see how utterly untenable his position is, and that 

 Listera must be retained. 



Why should a note of interrogation be put after the 

 census numbers of Carex Davalliana (i Co.), Senecio palndosits 

 (3 Co.), S.palustris (8 Co.), and Holosteum umbellatuui (3 Co.), 

 because they are extinct in some of the counties ? A flora 

 should show this, not a catalogue. There is no question of 

 the occurrence of the first, notwithstanding the doubts that 

 have been expressed. Of the second there are specimens in 

 herbaria from the three counties (!), and it still probably 



