210 MisceUaneous. 



AGRIMONIA ODORATA, AITON. 



In the course of an examination of my native species of Rosacea, 

 I have had the fortune to detect a good specimen, in fruit, of the 

 Agrimonia odorata of the Hortus Kewensis, given to me by the Rev. 

 W. W. Newbould, who gathered it at Beaumont in the island of 

 Jersey on the 15th of August 1842. I believe this to be the only 

 continental plant, not known as a native of Britain, which has been 

 added to the flora of the Channel Islands since the publication of 

 the ' Primitise Florae Sarnicae.' It is distinguished from A . Eupatoria, 

 which it greatly resembles, by its " greater size, — three to four feet 

 high ;" leaves more deeply and more sharply cut, hairy and furnished 

 with scattered glands beneath, not cano-tomentose ; tube of the calyx 

 of the fruit larger but shorter, bell- shaped or nearly hemispherical, 

 not turbinate, uniformly hairy and glandular, only furrowed in its 

 upper half, and even there the furrows are shallow ; spines longer, 

 and the lower ones strongly reflexed ; petals " saturate aureis," red 

 in the dried specimen. It will probably be detected in some of our 

 southern counties if diligently looked for. — C. C. B. 



HASSALl's '* BRITISH FRESHWATER ALGiE." 



The Editors think it right to make a few observations upon Mr. 

 Hassall's letter printed in the last number of these ' Annals,' and to 

 which these remarks would have been appended, had they not thought 

 that they might as well allow their readers one month's opportunity 

 of contrasting the letter and the review, believing that the latter is 

 by far the best answer to most points brought forward in the former. 

 They wish it to be distinctly understood that they are not again re- 

 viewing the work, and do not intend to be drawn into a paper war, 

 which would be totally out of place here. 



Mr. Hassall complains that the review contains animadversions 

 which a careful and candid examination of the work will not justify ; 

 they have now to state that a re-examination has only convinced them 

 that the reviewer has been very lenient, and that Mr. Hassall should 

 have been well-satisfied when he reflects how plentifuljy he has ap- 

 propriated to himself the labours of others. 



Suppose that Mr, Hassall had been engaged for the last two or 

 three years in bringing out periodically original and elaborate figures 

 with descriptions, as Mr. Ralfs has done, and that some compiler, 

 watching close at his heels, had instantly and without ceremony 

 copied a very large number of his figures, and given them to the 

 world as his own, would Mr. Hassall have been content to acquiesce 

 without complaint or remonstrance .'' To say nothing of the illegality 

 of such a proceeding (which however is clear enough), there is too 

 much reason to complain of its injustice and disingenuousness. 



It is to little purpose that Mr. Hassall states that " no one plate 

 is a copy of any one of Mr. Ralfs's," when the figures of which they 

 are composed are palpably so, although by transpositions and inver- 

 sions the identity of the plates is disguised. 



Our readers may judge for themselves by comparing the plates of 

 DesmidecB in both works: they will see that there is not a single 



