PRODROMI FLOR^ BRITANNIC^ SPECIMEN 213 



attention has been paid to systematic arrangement and nomen- 

 clature, and the system of Engler and of the modern German 

 botanists has been adopted, in preference to that of Jussieu, 

 De Candolle, or Bentham and Hooker. Characters are not sup- 

 plied for the classes, families, or genera, but abundant references 

 to standard authors are quoted ; in CcDiipositcB (called AsteracecB) a 

 table shows the disposition of the genera in series, subfamilies, 

 tribes, and subtribes, and, together with some original matter, 

 characters are given for the various groups subordinate to the 

 series. All the species are critically described in Latin; "the 

 Latin style used is that of the nominative absolute with separate 

 sentences, instead of the frequently used ablative in a single long 

 sentence broken up by semicolons." But might not the accounts 

 of British plants have been rendered in the English language ? 



Proper precision has been applied in the employment of the 

 terms used to express the different forms of pubescence and the 

 various shades of colour ; this precision and the correct citation 

 and description of varieties are useful features of the scheme, which 

 extends over sixteen octavo pages, and embraces thirty species in 

 fifteen genera. Tournefort and Jussieu and other of the older 

 botanists, though not earlier than 1700, are cited for the genera, so 

 far as the names are adopted ; in the case of less ancient authors, 

 however, a different style or standard is followed ; as an instance, 

 on page 16, for Anaphalis the original authority of Aug. P. De Can- 

 doUe is dropped out, notwithstanding the fact that the species com- 

 prehended by its author are still meant to be retained in it ; the 

 extension, by which several other species are supposed to be in- 

 cluded, and which involves some modification of the characters, 

 ought not to ignore the work of the first proposer. 



Synonymy in the case of the species has been rigorously ex- 

 cluded, except for that which has received a new name, namely, 

 Inula vulf/arls Williams, the plant which Linnaeus called Conyza 

 sqiiarrosa. With regard to this the author in a note (page 14) 

 apologizes as follows : — " In proposing this name for the Linnean 

 plant, I have followed S. F. Gray and St. Lager in discarding a 

 specific name which is identical with that of a closely allied genus, 

 in which the two parts of the binomial would be incompatible, as 

 illustrated in Inula Conyza Cand., under which name the species is 

 commonly indexed. I. vulgaris Trev. is Pulicaria vulgaris Gartn. ; 

 and the specific name of "squarrosa" is not available, as Linnaeus 

 has also described an I. squarrosa. No other synonyms for the 

 plant under its present genus are recorded in Index Kewensis, which 

 is the excuse for proposing the present name, suggested by Bauhin's 

 name for the plant, Conyza major vulgaris.'' 



The style of Linnaeus has been followed in treating the generic 

 name of Erigeron as of the neuter gender, although classical usage 

 regards the noun as masculine. The abbreviation for De Candolle 

 which Mr. WiUiams adopts is Cand., an improvement on the more 

 customary DC. 



The localities and distribution of the less common species are 

 briefly given, and for each species the station which it usually affects 

 is added, with an Enghsh name at the end ; these and the intro- 



