1 70 September, 



NOTES. 



BOTANY. 



Irish Topographical Botany. 



For Mr. Moffat's excellent critical notice of my book, I offer him my 

 sincere thanks. Regarding some points, I fear he is unduly complimen- 

 tary ; but on the other hand, he has done useful service in pointing out 

 several omissions. Regarding one or two of his criticisms, I should like 

 to offer a word of explanation. Mr. Moffat turns the search-light of his 

 unequalled knowledge of the flora of Co. Wexford on the records for that 

 county in " Irish Topographical Botany," and I am relieved to find that 

 he finds so little in the way of error or omission. 



Hypericum calycinum. — Mr. Moffat's MS. notes say, " several roadside 

 localities," without any particulars ; these are purposely omitted, like 

 many other similar records. 



Arctium minus and Mentha sativa. — Further records purposely omitted, 

 pending confirmation by an authority. [ trust Mr. Moffat will not 

 object to have his records treated as I treated those of my own which 

 were not backed by the opinion of an authority. 



Papaver Rhccas and Lychnis diurna. — In these cases Mr. Moffat is right. 

 Other records in his MS. list should be recognized by the addition of 

 the word "rare" after the record which I quote. 



Osmunda regalis. — There is a slip here, in the inclusion of county- 

 division 12 in the note on p. 386. This is clear from the note given on 

 p. 385, where the plant is correctly described as frequent in Wexford. 



Pinguicula lusitanica. — " N. E." is a misprint for " N. W." This reconciles 

 Mr. Moffat's statement with mine. 



Pinguicula vulgaris. — Found by myself near foot of Blackstairs in 1899. 



As regards the maps showing progress of field-work, Mr. Moffat points 

 out that, by implication, a list of over2co species might have been compiled 

 from More's paper on the flora of Castle Taylor, and that S. E. Galway 

 ought, therefore, to have been lightly coloured on the first map. This 

 is so. I can only plead that in a rapid survey of some hundreds of papers 

 for positive results, a negative result, such as this, was easily overlooked. 

 While regretting the oversight, I can hardly thiuk that it justifies the 

 rather severe generalization about want of fairness to previous explorers 

 which Mr. Moffat draws from it. 



The only other point to which I wish to refer concerns the MS. list 

 of Wexford plants referred to by Mr. Moffat. This was compiled during 

 a number of years past by Capt. Barrett-Hamilton and himself, and he 

 most kindly placed it in my hands. But it ought not, according to the 

 standard used, to be quoted in any one of the three places where Mr. 

 Moffat says it ought. The "Bibliography" does not include private 

 manuscript material, and its inclusion there would be unwarranted. 

 Neither ought it to appear in the right-hand column on p. lxxxv., 

 marked " A," as an analysis of its contents and dates will show : nor in 



