CURTIS'S 'FLORA LONDINENSIS.' 118 



Linnean order (though not so issued iu the first instance), we 

 should have no clue to their original order, but for the fact that 

 Stokes, in the second edition of Witheriug's Botanical Arraiujewent 

 (1787), refers to the plates by the parts or "Nos." containing them. 

 By the aid of these references I have been able to arrange the 

 plates in groups of six each, in their original order. Plate 101, 

 above referred to, comes, as we should expect, iu part 17, and this 

 is Stokes's reference. Part 1 contained Aiiagallisarvensis ("tab. 1," 

 Sibthorp, Fl. Oxoji.), Butomus umhellatus, Hypericum ^^if/c/o-wm, 

 Solanum Dulcamara, Lonicera Perichjmenum, and Aspleniuni Scolo- 

 pendrium (all bearing the reference "i. 1 " in Withering). 



The "MS. of Pulteney," from which the date, May, 1775, of 

 the first No. is derived is, I believe, to be found in a copy of the 

 first edition of Hudson's Fl. Anglica in the library of the Linnean 

 Society. The first fasciculus was complete when Lightfoot's Fl. 

 Scotica was published, July 24th, 1777, and the second, third, and 

 fourth fasciculi seem to have appeared at about the same rate, 

 though the materials for fixing dates are very scanty. Hudson's 

 Fl. Anglica, ed. 2 (1778), is first quoted under pi. 115 [Lanrimn 

 albxm) in No. 20. No. 32 in fasc. iii. must have been published 

 after October, 1780 (see pi. 190, Hydnum auriscalpiuDi) ; No. 39 

 in fasc. iv. at the end of 1781 (see pi. 285, Phallus caninus). 

 Carex riparia (pi. 281 in No. 47) may be dated 1783 without 

 much risk of error. It appears also in Curtis's "Catalogue of 

 British Plants cultivated in the London Botanic Garden," pub- 

 lished in the same year. C. gracilis (also in No. 47) is men- 

 tioned in the Settle Catalogue of Plants observed in 1782, with 

 a reference to "Fl. Lond.," but the Catalogue may have been 

 published later. 



Fasc. v, appears to have extended from 1783 to 1788, or perhaps 

 later. • PI. 342, Sparganium ramosum, is in No. 58, the last No. 

 quoted by Stokes, so it maybe dated 1786, after August (see letter- 

 press), or more probably 1787. The numbering of the plates, 

 which is somewhat irregular — some numbers occurring two or even 

 three times, and some being omitted — ends with pi. 348 {Chrysan- 

 themum Lencanthemum) in No. 59. 



In fasc. vi., the plates not being numbered, and Stokes's 

 references now failing us, we are rather at sea ; but some of the 

 plates are dated, viz., Lathyrus sylvestris, Ornithopus perpusillus, 

 Vrtica dioica, and TJ. urens, "Jan. 1, 1791"; Geranium, dissectum, 

 "Mar. 1, 1791"; and Festuca elatior and F. loliacea, "Dec. 1, 

 1791." Ophrys fucifera appears to have been published "June 1, 

 1794" (see letterpress), and Antirrhinum (Pelnria) in the same 

 year. Twenty-eight more of the plates in this fasciculus are 

 referred to in Sibthorp's Fl. Oxon. (1794), and twelve more 

 (including Cerastium pumilum) in With. Bot. Arr. ed. 3 (1796). 

 This leaves twenty-two more (including Cerastium. tetrandrum) to 

 complete the fasciculus, and in one of these. Lobelia urens, Curtis 

 refers to "October 18, 1796" as "two years since." Both vols, 

 ii. and iii. have the date 1798 on the title-page. Carex ventricosa 

 {depauperata) in this fasciculus is referred to in Goodenough's paper 

 Journal of Botany. — Vol. 33. [April, 1895.] i 



