I900.J CoLGAN AND ScuivLY. — Remarks 071 Cybch Hibeynica. 6j 



EiipJiorbia hibcrna is no exception, as we hold that the trust- 

 worthy Limerick records for the plant amount to a confirma- 

 tion) ; and Wade's authority seems to us entitled to so much 

 greater weight than either Smith's or Keogh's, that in many 

 cases we do not hesitate to accept from him unconfirmed 

 records if they have no obvious improbability. 



In discussing our comparison of the floras of Districts XI. 

 and XII. (p. 34)5 Mr. Hart qualifies as erroneous certain of 

 our statements founded on an accurate surve}^ of the informa- 

 tion then available. The word "erroneous" is not justly 

 applicable here, unless it be an error to remain ignorant of 

 what has not been divulged. Again, our method of comparing 

 the Irish and English floras is taken exception to in the foot- 

 note to the same page, Mr. Hart once more resenting an 

 imaginary injustice -to Ireland. Some standard must be taken, 

 and when taken, moreover, must be rigidl}^ adhered to through- 

 out the various comparisons made. We have taken Hooker 

 as standard, and it is, of course, immaterial how he treats the 

 Hawkweeds, since his treatment affects the English and Irish 

 floras in the same way. The case of Ireland versus England 

 is no whit strengthened by deposing Hooker in favour of the 

 London Catalogue — Ireland's gain in Hieraeiuvi forms being 

 fully balanced b}^ England's gain. Mr. Hart again returns to 

 this subject on pp. 41 and 44, where he discusses various 

 additions to be made to the Donegal flora. In both of his 

 numbered lists, those on pp. 36-41, and on pp. 42-44, mere 

 varieties, nowhere counted by us for comparative purposes, 

 are included, 2 in the first list and 2 in the second, the effect 

 being to improperly raise the Donegal total by 4. In the first 

 list the numbered additions are 11, 3'et Mr. Hart in his 

 summing up on p. 41 counts them as 12. But one plant, 

 Helia^itheimivi vulgare, is numbered and counted twice, so that 

 the true number of his additions is neither 11 nor 12 but 10. 

 At the same time, 8 of the additions in this first list are plants 

 excluded by us and reintroduced by Mr. Hart, who seems to 

 overlook the fact that if every patriotic district botanist is to 

 revise our Appendix thus no benefit can accrue to any of 

 them. There is, at all events, this advantage in accepting 

 our views as to excluded species, that the principles on which 

 we acted, whether just or unjust, were laid down at the very 



