192 The Irish Naturalisf, August, 



either purel}- maritime or approach closely to the sea. The number of 

 such divisions is about 30 ; and it would seem prima facie that any species 

 occurring only in 10 or a less number of these divisions must fail to have 

 the tolerabl}' even marginal range necessary to qualify it for admission 

 to this type. There are 11 such sp3cies given in the list of Marginal 

 plants on p. 37, and examination shows thatS of these, while thej^ satisfy 

 the condition of a general avoidanceof the Central Plain, fail to establish 

 for themselves what can be considered, even on the most liberal interpre- 

 tation of the words, a tolerabl}- even, though frequently discontinuous 

 range through the marginal divisions. These species are the follow- 

 ing: — Subularia aqiiatira, Sagina siibulata, Elatiiie hexandra, Trifolitim 

 fragifenini^ Caruni verticillatitni, Hieracitim Schmidtii, Pilularia globiclifera^ 

 and Chara canescens. If the Highland type be retained for Ireland, and in 

 spite of its anomalies of distribution so forcibl}^ urged by Mr. Praeger 

 towards the close of his paper, it seems advisable to do so. eight species 

 of this type must be further deducted from the proposed list of Marginal 

 type species, reducing the group from 46 to 30. So revised, the Marginal 

 type would no doubt be a small one, but if we are to have many and 

 definite types of distribution in Ireland we must be content to have 

 them small. 



Next in order to the Central and Marginal types come what may be 

 conveniently spoken of as the provincial types. In his remarks on p. 32 

 Mr. Praeger has well showm that much less diversity is to be looked for 

 in the Irish than in the British flora. The area of our island is, in fact, 

 too small for the development of such broad differences as are found in 

 Great Britain, and the seeker after Irish types has need to guard himself 

 against the temptation to over-elaborate his material. Still, the leading 

 diversities of the Irish flora are sufficiently w-ell-marked. The existence 

 of four distinct floral groups, an eastern and a western, a northern and a 

 southern, has long been recognised, and might, indeed, have been inferred 

 a priori from a consideration of obvious climatic differences. In these 

 groups, the chief members of which are set out in the Introduction to 

 the Second Edition of Cybcle Hibcrnica, will be found the groundwork of 

 the provincial types as proposed in the paper now under review% Various 

 titles might be suggested for these groups by those who are not content 

 with the bald nomenclature drawn from the cardinal points. But 

 perhaps no choice could be happier than the one Mr. Praeger has made 

 in adopting, with slight modification, the Latinized forms of the old Iri.sh 

 province names in use as early at least as the twelfth centur}'. In 

 changing the Momonia and Conatia of Giraldus Cambreusis to Mumouia 

 and Connacia, a closer approach has been made to the original Gaelic 

 without violating English ideas of euphony. 



The definition of these types is given on p. 34, where it is stated that 

 they are ''named after the four provinces of Ireland in which each type 

 respectively reaches its maximum, namely: UUonian type in Antrim, 

 Mumoniau type in East Cork, Lagenian type in Dublin, Connacian type 

 in West Galway." We might fairly conclude from this passage that the 

 area of each type would be roughly co-extensive with the province whose 



