334 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



SHOUT NOTES. 



A Defiled Sanctuary. A paragraph in the last issue of this 

 Journal, copied from a daily paper, ought not to pass without notice. 

 It states that the Director of Kew Gardens, with the alpine specialist 

 of the same institution and Mr. N. It. Bulley, had recently visited 

 Snowdon and planted a large tract with roots and seeds of alpine 

 plants from Kew. One might have been inclined to pass this as one 

 of the scientific jeux-d' esprit with which the Editor sometimes 

 regales us ; but, having recently helped Sir Frederick Moore to repel 

 a similarly well-meant but misguided attack by Mr. Bulley on one 

 of our Irish alpine areas, I fear there may be some truth in it. I 

 think all students of geographical distribution will agree that action 

 of this kind is to be deplored, and may have mischievous results 

 undreamed of by its authors. Were the plants so introduced confined 

 to species which by no stretch of imagination could be expected to 

 occur naturally upon Snowdon — for instance, natives of the New 

 Zealand or Yunnan Alps — no great harm would be done. But if they 

 include plants of the adjoining mountain regions of the Continent, 

 then such action savours of a deliberate attempt to falsify the his- 

 torical and geographical record. It seems to m} r mind to be like 

 introducing objects of another dynasty into some unexplored Egyptian 

 tomb, or like scattering exotic shells on the sea-shore for a concho- 

 logist to find — as William Turton's daughter did at Portmarnock, 

 with dire results. Should at any future time an alpine plant 

 hitherto unknown on Snowdon be discovered there, it will be im- 

 possible to tell whether it is a relic of an ancient glacial flora, or an 

 example of the efficiency of Mr. Irving's work with seeds : and the 

 biogeographical value of the discovery will be seriously impaired. It 

 is difficult enough, as every field-botanist knows, to unravel the tangled 

 skein of the present British flora and endeavour to reconstruct from 

 it with any certainty a picture of the natural vegetation of our 

 country — a picture which is surely of much interest and importance 

 to every thinking man. Is it unreasonable to ask our comrades in 

 the domain of horticulture not to render our task more difficult by 

 throwing sand in our eyes ? — It. Lloyd Praeger. 



[When we first saw the paragraph to which Mr. Lloyd Praeger 

 takes exception, we thought, as he did, that some hoax had been 

 perpetrated, and we awaited the contradiction which we felt sure 

 would follow. But a fuller statement to the same effect appeared in 

 the Times, and no correction ensued, so that we must reluctantly 

 conclude that Sir David Prain has allowed his name to be associated 

 with an enterprise which we do not think Mr. Praeger condemns too 

 strongly. — Ed. Journ. Bot.] 



Orchis elodes Griseb. (p. 305). In October 1906, I sent a 

 note on Orchis elodes Griseb. ; here it is, but you did not put it in. 

 You sent a description of it, and there it ended. But I was right, as 

 I then thought I was. — A. Bennett. 



[Mr. Bennett encloses the note, which is as follows : — 



" Orchis ericetorum Linton (Flora of Bournemouth, p. 208, 

 1900). Is this 'subspecies 1 of O. maculata the same as O. elodes 



