178 TTIE JOUEXAL OF BOTA^'Y 



The interest of this first Report and a desire to ascertain its author 

 induced me to go tlirough the series ; my hrst im})ression (notwith- 

 standing the misprint indicated above) was that it was attributable 

 to John Bellenden Ker (176^-184^2) ; but as my investigations 

 proceeded, this view became untenable. It was therefore necessary 

 to discover someone living at the period, not connected with any of 

 the works under review and possessed of sufficient botanical know- 

 ledge to criticize competently the books which came under his notice. 

 Such a one was found in Samuel Frederick Gray (1766-1828). There 

 is no need to detail the grounds on which this conclusion is based ; 

 once stated, it is sufficiently obvious. It may, however, be noted that 

 the botanical " Monthly Reports," which, as has been said, ceased to 

 appear in the ^lontlihj Ma(/azine in 181.J, were resumed in Thomson's 

 Anncfh of Philosophy (xvi. llo-l^O : 1820), where the "Botany" 

 section of the " Historical Sketch of Improvements in Physical 

 Science during the Year 1819 " has at its head " By Samuel Frederick 

 Gray Esq." Concerning this the following note appears in the List 

 of Books &c. by John Edward Gray, printed for private distribution 

 in 1872: "This essay, like the Medical Plants in my father's pre- 

 viously published supplement to the Pharmacopoeia , was arranged in 

 the natural order of Jussieu, then lirst used in any English work. It 

 was condensed by my father from my notes made from the works in 

 Sir Joseph Banks's library." The summary, which was not continued, 

 although more comprehensive in character is on the same lines as the 

 " Monthly Reports." J. D. Hooker (in Mem. Soc. Sc. Nat. Cher- 

 bourg, xxix. 88: 1892) writes: "That [Gray] had repute as a 

 botanist is evidenced by his having been employed by the editor of 

 Thomson's 'Annals of Philosophy ' to write an article on Botany for 

 that work " — a reference which incidentally shows that Hooker was 

 \maware of Gray's connection with the Monthly Mayazine, as pro- 

 biibly of the Magazine itself. 



The account of S. F. Gray by Mr. Boulger (Diet. Nat. Biogr. 

 xxiii. 20), excellent so far as it goes — for the dates there given, 

 1766-1828 should be substituted, — is capable of considerable amplili- 

 cation. For my present purpose, however, I ])ropose to confine myself 

 to the articles in the Monthly Mayazine which relate to the work 

 and especially to the Prodronius of Robert Brown, reserving for a 

 later paper notes upon the other contents of the magazine. 



Readers of this Journal may remember that, in the course of a 

 notice of Mr. Maiden's Forest Flora of New South Wales (Journ. 

 Bot. 1908, 252), exception w^as taken to that author's suggestion that 

 the non-publication of Robert Brown's MS. descriptions of Australian 

 plants was due to some form of "suppression " — " whether this sup- 

 pression eventually met with the acquiescence of Brown himself, or 

 whether he was controlled, in this respect, by superior authority." 

 The misleading nature of the suggestion was demonstrated, and the 

 traditional reason for the discontinuance of the Prodromns, as acce])ted 

 in the Department of Botany, was thus stated : " Mr. CaiTuthers 

 informs us that he gathered from Mr. J. J. Bennett, Brown's friend 

 and successor, that Brown was much annoyed at some criticisms 



