152 . SHORT NOTES. 



However, every one should be aware of the great difiSculty of freeing 

 such a list from errors of this kind. 



A more significant fact in regard to the work is the number of 

 changes of name which have resulted from readjustment of generic 

 lines, and from a modified conception of the dignity of the species. 

 It cannot fail to strike the botanist who glances over this list that 

 many of its species are founded upon plants which by such 

 experienced botanists as Hooker, Gray, Watson, and others, have 

 generally been regarded as varieties. Of course it is not denied 

 that the reverse case often obtains, A corresponding change (and 

 here a distinct depreciation) in the dignity of the variety is shown 

 by Prof, Britton's many "albitloras," covering forms of which Dr. 

 Gray, in a letter recently published, wrote, " When the new edition 

 of the Manual comes out, it will have a nota bene : Expect a white- 

 flowered state of every coloured species. They are sure to turn up 

 sooner or later. And 1 find it no good, therefore, to say var. alba over 

 and over." If it should be urged that, upon the basis of former publi- 

 cations, Gerardia purpurea albijlora Britton, (x. tenuijivrd albijiora 

 Britton, Gentiana Andreivsii albijlora Britton, &c., are to be regarded 

 merely as forms, and not as varieties, it may be asked whether the 

 trinomial system adopted in the list has not a considerable defect 

 if it cannot indicate the difference between a well-marked variety 

 and a mere form. Whether the naming of forms is at present 

 desirable may well remam an open question, but there can be no 

 doubt that such a course is a general tendency of exhaustive 

 systematic study, and accordingly a style of nomenclature in 

 which there is no distinction between subspecific, varietal, and 

 formal differences is likely to appear to future botanists a rather 

 clumsy tool. However, to return to the interpretation of groups, 

 I would not be taken as even hinting that every botanist has not a 

 perfect right to put his own construction upon the limits of genera, 

 species, and varieties. But it should be apparent to those sanguine 

 supporters of reform, who hope to derive stability from it, that here 

 again everything depends upon individual judgment, and must 

 always do so. 



In the light of what has been said, it seems sufficiently evident 

 that the new system, far from furnisliing a satisfactory solution to 

 the nomenclature question, fails even to offer such substantial 

 advantages over the existing system as greater clearness and 

 prospect of permanency, for which alone working botanists could 

 afford to make such sweeping changes in their language. 



SHORT NOTES. 



CocHLEARiA MicACEA Marshall in Shetland, — A small plant 

 collected by Mr. W. A. Shoolbred in 1892 at Baltasound, Unst 

 was sent for me to grow, last spring, as it had failed to bloom in 

 his garden. It produced a number of procumbent flowering-stems, 

 enabhng me to dry a good number of specimens. This I place 



