110 Retrospective Criticism. 



Art. IX. Retrospective Criticism, 



Errata.— In Vol. I. p. 242., line 25., should not the word two be three? 

 No ; the three species enumerated are by |some considered only two. 



Cond. r • • o 



In p. 362. there is no reference made to figure 169. 6 ; what is it .'' — It 

 is Salpiglossis plcta. 



In p. 375. for 32 read 52. 



In p. 37 5. for Prov. xxx. 25. read Prov. xxx. ^8. 



In p. 383., line 43, should not the word Wernerian be Huttonian ? 

 [J. R. says no.] — G. M. Lynn Regis, Nov. 17. 1828. 



Errors in printing the List of the Birds of Passage in the Neighbourhood 

 '^of Carlisle, (Vol. I. p. 290.) : — 



Line 2, for 1808 read 1828. 



3, for Pjpsetus read Cypselus. 

 9, for gaisila read grisola. 

 10, for vendutie read ffinanthe. 



— T. C. Hey sham. Carlisle, Sept. 29. \S^S, 



Skeleton for Perennial Calendar. — Sir, Pyrus japouica is a bad plant to 

 select, for it shows some blossom more or less in every month of the year ; 

 and every observer, delighted to vaunt the praises of his own situation, 

 will be sure to report it in bloom in every one of the winter months. One 

 in the neighbourhood of Bristol now (November 28th) has a hundred blos- 

 soms. — P,T. Bristol, Nov. 28. 



Piciis Minor. — I observe one of your correspondents notes the Picus 

 minor, " very rare;*^ and another regards the individual in his possession 

 as " the only authentic British specimen ;" whereas, in the course of last 

 year, I enriched my own collection of British birds by the addition oi three 

 selected specimens, all shot at Wynnstay ; and two others passed through 

 my hands, obtained from Llanymynech. Had it been my desire, their 

 number might easily have been extended, I will not say how far. — B. D. 

 Wrexham, Nov. 17. 1828. 



Perennial Calendar, — Observations drawn from bulbous flowers which 

 are planted at various seasons, and make their appearances accordingly, 

 tell but little ; nor are we much the wiser from those of annuals, for the 

 same reason. — J.R. Kilkenny. 



List of Rare Plants and Insects. — Sir, I hope I may be allowed to remark, 

 without giving offence, that some of the articles occasionally enumerated 

 by your correspondents in their lists of rare plants and insects are hardly 

 worth recording as such, or rather have no pretensions whatever to be 

 considered in that light, being, on the contraiy, of every-day occurrence in 

 most parts of the country. Thus e. g. in Mr. Babington's " list of the rare 

 plants and insects found in the neighbourhood of Bath," (p. 392.) the fol- 

 lowing, among many other common plants, are mentioned, viz. Campa- 

 nula rotundifolia, (Solanum Dulcamara, ^lisma Plantago, Epilobium hir- 

 sutum, (Xxalis Acetosella, iychnis dioica, iS'pirae^a Ulmaria, i\^uphar lutea, 

 Anemone nemorosa, O'rchis morio, and maculata, Tortula muralis, and 

 Bry\xm arg^nteum : and of insects, the following, viz. Dyticus marginalis, 

 Nepa cinerea, Panorpa communis, P6ntia wapi ? rapae ? and chariclea, Py- 

 gaeVa Buc^phala, and A'rctia caja. Surely the above rank among our 

 more common, not our rarer, plants and insects ; and if subjects of no 

 greater degree of rarity are worth selecting for particular notice, why not 

 increase the lists an hundred-fold ? Observe, I do not object to complete 

 catalogues of the plants and insects to be found in any district; so far from 

 it, indeed, such local Floras and Faunas would in my judgment be highly 



