158 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



edition by means of this supplement which incorporates the 

 alterations in that edition. As a result of this long delay, which 

 seems inexcusable, the supplement appears at the same time as a 

 new German edition, and the English rendering again falls behind. 

 Apart from its being already out of date, the supplement is very 

 troublesome to use, as it has to be compared page by page with 

 the English edition. Nothing less than an early translation of 

 the third German edition will now be satisfactory to botanists, 

 nor, we may add, consonant with the dignity and reputation of 

 the Oxford Press. ,, -tt r, 



V. xi. a. 



BOOK-NOTES, NEWS, dc 



The "Report for 1913" of "The Botanical Exchange Club 

 and Society of the British Isles" becomes yearly less and less 

 obviously connected with the Club and more and more a medium 

 for the expression of the views of Mr. Druce, the Secretary, upon 

 various botanical matters and above all for the publication of the 

 " comb.-nov." of which he is so expert — we had almost said so 

 unscrupulous — a manufacturer : the stronger expression was sug- 

 gested by finding (p. 314) three new names suggested for the same 

 plant ! We have more than once expressed an opinion, which we 

 know is widely if not universally shared, as to the unfortunate 

 obsession which can regard work of this kind as in any way 

 tending to the advance of science, and it seems useless to protest 

 further against Mr. Druce's action. Suffice it to say that in the 

 present "Report" he seems to have surpassed himself, and the 

 proposed recognition of John Hill's accidental binominals has 

 afforded him a new opportunity for the display of his powers in 

 this direction. The " Report " has not reached us for notice, so 

 we are excused from saying anything more about it. It is note- 

 worthy that Mr. Druce says that his opinion "in no way assumes 

 to carry with it the authority of the Club." 



From a printed circular which, though headed " private and 

 confidential," is sent out with the " Report," we learn that 

 Mr. Druce is " anxious to raise a sum of £200 in order to be able 

 to publish a history of the London Botanical Society, to reprint a 

 few of the earlier Reports of the Club, to publish a general Index 

 to the whole of the Reports, to put the Society in a more satis- 

 factory financial position." As to the first object, assuming that 

 by " the London Botanical Society " the Botanical Society of 

 London is intended, we are glad that Mr. Druce proposes to act 

 on the suggestion made in this Journal for 1911, p. 352 ; " no 

 one," as we then remarked, "could do it better." The others seem 

 to us of more doubtful utility : the last we do not understand — 

 "the Society " cannot be that previously mentioned in the same 

 sentence: does it refer to the "Society of the British Isles," 

 which sprang into existence as a nomcn nudum on the titlepage of 

 the Exchange Club Report for 1910 (see Journ. Bot. 1911, 325), 



