260 CHARLES OARDALE EABINGTON. 



most desirable that the students of our native Flora should not 

 confine their attention to books published in this country," comes 

 the sound advice, which even at the present time cannot be con- 

 sidered altogether needless : — " It is necessary to warn students 

 against the very common error of supposing that they have found 

 one of the plants described in a foreign Flora, when in reality they 

 have only gathered a variety of some well-known British plant. 

 The risk of falling into such errors renders it necessary to consult 

 such works as those of Messrs. Boreau and Jordan with great 

 caution, lest we should be misled by descriptions most accurate 

 indeed, but often rather those of individuals than species. Amongst 

 plants so closely allied as are many of those called species in some 

 continental works, it is scarcely possible to arrive at a certain con- 

 clusion without the inspection of authentic specimens." 



Shortly after the publication of the fourth edition of the Manual, 

 an important rival had appeared in Mr. Bentham's Handbook of the 

 British Flora (1858). There is no need here to enter upon a 

 discussion as to the relative merits of these works, each of which 

 has proved useful to many generations of botanists ; but it may be 

 well to reprint the remarks which Babington made in the preface 

 to this fifth edition of the Manual — the next which appeared after 

 the publication of Bentham's book, which latter, as every one 

 knows, considerably "reduced the number of our native species." 

 No one would disparage for one moment the value of Bentham's 

 work or the sanity of bis conclusions ; yet it is well known that 

 it was mainly based upon the examination of herbarium specimens, 

 and this in spite of the large number of living plants always at 

 hand, in the Gardens to which the Kew Herbarium is an adjunct. 



"An attempt has recently been made," says Babington, "greatly 

 to reduce the number of our native species. The results obtained 

 seem to be so totally opposed to the teaching of the plants them- 

 selves, and the evidence adduced in their favour is so seldom more 

 than a statement of opinion, that they cannot safely be adopted ; 

 nor does the plan of the present work admit of a discussion of the 

 many questions raised by them. Also, it has been laid down as a 

 rule by some botanists that no plant can be a species whose dis- 

 tinctive characters are not as manifest in an herbarium as when 

 it is alive. We are told that our business as descriptive botanists 

 is not 'to determine what is a species,' but simply to describe plants 

 so that they may be recognized from the dry specimen. The author 

 cannot agree to this rule. Although he, in common with other 

 naturalists, is unable to define what is a species, he believes that 

 species exist, and that they may often be easily distinguished 

 amongst living plants, even when separated with difficulty from 

 their allies when dried specimens only are examined. He also 

 thinks that it is our duty as botanists to study the living plants 

 whenever it is possible to do so, and to describe from them ; 

 to write for the use and instrnction of field- rather than cabinet- 

 naturalists — for the advancement of a knowledge of the plants 

 rather than for the convenience of possessors of herbaria ; also, 

 that the differences which we are able to describe as distinguishing 



