6 THE JOURNAL OT BOTANY 



was possible, on abundant material: thus he prefaces the *^ JSpilohium 

 Notes " (J. Bot. 1890, 2-10), written when he was at Milford, by 

 saying : " During the past season I have examined many thousands 

 of living specimens, paying special attention to hybrids," of which 

 several new to the British Flora were obtained and two new ones 

 (-E*. X Surreyanum and E. X anglicuni) described : this paper is an 

 excellent example of Marshall's careful and critical work. The publi- 

 cation by C. B. Clarke on p. 225 of the same volume of E. Duriasi as 

 *' a new (?) English plant " led to one of those controversies that 

 sometimes enliven the most serious journals, in which both con- 

 tributors maintained their respective views with some warmth (see 

 J. Bot. 1890, 296 ; 1891, 78, 106 ; 1893, 20) ; the controversy finally 

 developed into a discussion of hybridity — a subject to which Marshall 

 paid much attention ; a note on a hybrid Epilohium appeared as 

 recently as 1918 (p. 382). In later years he Avas especially interested 

 in Saxifraqa, of which he grew many specimens, brought from Ireland 

 and elsewhere, in the portion of his garden devoted to experimental 

 growths : he regarded his papers (J. Bot. 1917, 151-161 ; 1918, 

 65-67) — the result of many years' observation — as examples of his 

 best work. 



It was appropriate that Marshall's name should be associated with 

 two of his favourite genera, and that this should have been done by 

 those who were not only experts in those genera but also members of 

 his own profession. It may be noted in passing that, from the days 

 of William Turner (tl568), who is regarded as its "father," the 

 clergy of the Established Church have been among the chief pro- 

 moters of English botany — John Kay (1627-1705) stands out as their 

 most eminent example — and a catena of their number might be made 

 reaching to the present time : William Williamson Newbould (1819- 

 1886), himself retiring to a fault and unrepresented in literature, 

 probably did more than anyone to stimulate the study of critical 

 plants. Contemporary with Marshall and fellow-workers with him 

 were Richard Paget Murrav (1842-1908), William Eichardson 

 Linton (1850-1908), Augustin Ley (1842-1911); the Rev. W. Moyle 

 Rogers and the Rev. Edward F. Linton still happily with us : William 

 Henry Purchas (1823-1903), Thomas Arthur Preston (1833-1905), 

 and William Hunt Painter (1835-1910), although contemporary, 

 were less associated with Marshall than those already named. The 

 Rev. H. J. Riddelsdell, though also contemporary, from whom much 

 may be expected, belongs to a somewdiat younger generation of clerical 

 botanists, of which he is apparently the sole representative ; it may 

 be hoped that others in the ranks of the clergy will arise to carry on 

 the tradition, but of this no sign is yet apparent. 



The tw^o plants named after Marshall were both collected by him- 

 self : Hieracium MarsJialli, described by the Rev. E. F. Linton 

 (Journ. Bot. 1891, 271) was discovered by him on rocks by the 

 Unich Water, Forfar, in 1888 ; Biihus Marshalli, first described 

 (Journ. Bot. 1892, 310) as R. Koelileri var. hirsutus and raised to 

 specific rank by Focke and Rogers (Journ. Bot. 1895, 103) was 

 observed by him in company wdth Mr. Moyle Rogers at Munstead 

 and Witley, Surrey, in 1890, where " it is quite a marked feature of 



