48 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



enumeration down to Plantaginea. Sir W. Tbiselton-Dyer con- 

 tributes a brief preface, in the course of which he thus explains 

 the delays which have hindered the progress of the work: — "The 

 present volume was ready for the press at the beginning of 1898. 

 The inconvenience of the delay in publication is obvious. The con- 

 tributors see other writers secure the priority of their work, while 

 the manuscript has continually to be re-written to incorporate what 

 has been published while it is waiting for the printer. For all this 

 I am in no way responsible. I prepare the work ; but over printing 

 and publication I have not the slightest control. And as no less 

 than five government departments have a say in the matter, the 

 task of getting them into line is one of no small difficulty. A fire 

 which took place at the printer's in December of last year was a 

 further impediment. Fortunately, however, most of the manuscript 

 was recovered eventually from the ruins. Three more volumes will 

 complete the work as originally planned. Their preparation presents 

 no inherent difficulty, but their fate lies on the lap of the gods." 



This explanation of course only refers to the delays in the 

 publication of the present volume. The "inconvenience" men- 

 tioned, however, applies with still greater force to the thirty-one 

 years during which the work remained in abeyance, for the greater 

 part of which — /. e. since 1872 — it was in the hands of the present 

 editor, who issued the first instalment of the contniuation in 1896. 

 As a result of this delay, the work has indeed had to be "re- 

 written" ; but the responsibility for this can hardly be laid at the 

 door of the printer. Mr. Hiern, for example, at the request of Mr. 

 Dyer ''now Sir W. T. Thiselton-Dyer), prepared the ScrophularinecB 

 in 1874-5, and is now, after an interval of twenty-five years, re- 

 writing them. It will of course be noticed that the editor only 

 claims the " preparation " as his share of the work, and in this he 

 acknowledges the help of his staft" ; he has not so far contributed 

 to the scientific contents of the volumes. 



The appearance of "Appendix I. 1901" of the Kew Bulletin, 

 which, in spite of its thrice-repeated date, was actually issued in 

 November last, suggests wonder whether the printers — in this case 

 H. M. Stationery Office — are in this case responsible for the delay 

 in publication. One would imagine that its "preparation" could 

 " present no inherent difficulty," but no number has appeared since 

 October, 1899, although, as we pointed out last month (p. 501), the 

 volume for 1900 has been cited. The delay is the more inexplicable 

 in that, when the existence of the Bulletin was threatened in 1892, 

 the Times proclaimed that its pubhcation was "one of the most 

 useful functions" discharged by Kew Gardens. It will be remem- 

 bered also that the Bulletin replaced the annual reports of the work 

 of the Gardens which used to be issued, and which contained much 

 matter of botanical interest. The Guide to the Gardens, which was 

 stated in the House of Commons in 1891 to be " almost ready," 

 has never appeared. Is this, as well as the Bulletin and the Cape 

 African Floras, "on the lap of the gods," or are the printers once 

 more responsible ? 



