288 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



It is a matter for satisfaction that Bretschneider did not adhere 

 to his intention to delay the publication of his magnum opus until 

 the completion of the Inded'' Flora Sinensis. *' It is not to be fore- 

 seen," he wrote in 1898, "when Mr. Hemsley's admirable work, 

 interrupted more than four years ago, will be brought to an end " ; 

 and its conclusion still seems equally remote. Since 1891, only two 

 parts of the Inded-, amounting together to 142 pages, have been 

 published — one in 1894, the other in 1899 ; and it is needless to 

 point out that such delays are fatal to anything like a complete 

 presentment of our knowledge of the Chinese flora at any definite 

 date — the earlier portions (1889-91) must be hopelessly behind the 

 later in completeness, and the book as a whole is thus rendered 

 useless for statistical purposes. We would urge upon the Council 

 of the Linnean Society — in whose Journal the Index appears, 

 although we understand they are not primarily responsible for its 

 publication — to take all steps in their power to ensure the speedy 

 completion of the work. We understand a large portion of the 

 manuscript has for some time been ready, and it should not be 

 difficult to remove any obstacles to its speedy publication. 



We have before called attention to the inconvenience likely to 

 arise from the publication of plants as new species in two places, 

 without any indication in the later publication that the descriptions 

 have already appeared. An example of this may be noticed in 

 Malpighia, vol. xiv. fasc. ix-xii, pp. 425-456 (dated 1900, but not 

 issued till 1901), where Prof. Lopriore publishes as " Amarantaceae 

 novas" some genera and a large number of species which he had 

 previously published in Botanische Jahrhucher, xxvii. 37-60, as long 

 ago as April, 1899. We can, however, find no reference in Malpir/hia 

 to this earlier publication : on the contrary, the terms " nov. gen." 

 and " n. sp." are employed in such a way as to imply that the plants 

 are new. The fact that the two papers are not entirely identical 

 is likely to add to the confusion which this method can hardly fail 

 to cause. 



Mr. Aven Wilson seems to have hit upon a new mode of 

 addhig to unnecessary synonymy, by the creation of synonyms for 

 "homonyms" — at least, that appears to us to be the outcome of 

 his note in the Botanical Gazette for June, p. 407, which runs as 

 follows: — ''Arnica multijiora Greene, Pitt. 4: 162, evidently is 

 A. Columbiana Aven Nelson, Bot. Gaz. 30 : 200, since both are, in 

 part, founded on the same collections and the same numbers are 

 cited. The latter name is the earlier by two or three months. 

 Dr. Greene's A. Columbiana (Pitt. 4 : 159) having thus become a 

 homonym it may become Arnica Greenei, n. n." 



An article on the Tree Lobelias of Tropical Africa in the 

 Gardeners Chronicle for June 29 is accompanied by a picture from a 

 photograph of these remarkable plants, two of which were described 

 and figured by Mr. E. G. Baker in this Journal for 1894. These are 

 not referred to by Mr. Hemsley, but his article contains a reference 

 to "L. squarrosa Baker f." — a name which we are unable to trace. 



Erratum. — P. 245, 1. 19 from bottom, for " Whichelmore " read 



"MiCHELMORE." 



