104 THE CITATION OF BOTANICAL AUTHORITIES. 



quite overgrown it. (2) The station near Coventry railway- station 

 mentioned in ' Brit. Eubi,' p. 130, is quite destroyed by recent 

 building and other alterations. 



21. R. Salteri, Bab. — In woods. Rare. (1) In a small wood 

 near Solihull, named thus by Prof. Babington. Arley wood, 

 abundant. On this Prof. Babington remarks, "Bloxam's Salteri.'' 



22. E. Salteri, b. calvatiis, Blox. — In quarries and on marly 

 waysides, and rarely in hedges. (1) Abundant in a quarry near 

 Berkswell ; on marly banks near Oldbury sparingly. (2) Wyken 

 Lane, near Coventry, named by Prof. Babington. A very different 

 form from the Berkswell plant. 



23. 23^', 23'''*. R. carpimfolius. — On heath-lands and heathy 

 waysides. Rather local than rare. (1) Abundant on Sutton 

 Common ; named by Prof. Babington. Middleton Heath ; Brock- 

 hill Lane, near Honily. (2) Kenilworth Heath ; confirmed by 

 Prof. Babington, who says, " It is very like the tomentose plant 

 referred to in 'Brit. Rubi,' 139, from Mr. Hort." 



24. R. villicaulis, W. & N. — In hedges and woods. Locally 

 abundant. (1) Doe Bank, near Sutton ; confirmed by Prof. 

 Babington. Trickley Coppice ; New Park ; and Middleton Park ; 

 the plants from the last three stations differ from the type in the 

 more glandulose setose, prickly stem. A narrow- leaved form 

 occurs in lanes near Solihull and Hampton-in-Arden. The 

 Trickley coppice plant is numbered 25 in the set of specimens sent 

 to illustrate these notes. 



25*. R. adscitus, Genev. — On heathy waysides. Very rare. 

 (1) Lane out of Brockhill Lane, Honily. This seems to be the 

 nearest approach we have in Warwickshire to Mr. Briggs's Devon- 

 shire plant. (2) Coventry Road, near Allesley, named clerasus by 

 Prof. Babington. An abnormal state of this occurs in abundance 

 in New Park, Middleton. This is the R. heteroclitns of Bloxam. A 

 notice of this plant is given by Prof. Babington in ' Journ. Bot.,' 

 1878, p. 208. 



(To be continued.) 



THE CITATION OF BOTANICAL AUTHORITIES. 



I HAVE no great wish to embark on the troubled waters of con- 

 troversy, relative to Article 50 of the ' Laws of Nomenclature,' but 

 the invitation given on page 5J^ of the current volume of this 

 Journal induces me to set forth the x^lan on this point which I find 

 myself compelled to follow, in preparing a revised edition of 

 Steudel's ' Nomenclator.' 



It is evident at the outset that all publishing botanists are in 

 this dilemma, either that the present practice must be abandoned 

 or Art. 50 must be broken. There must be a greater or less 

 amount of inconvenience, whichever plan be ado^Dted, and as 

 arguments can be adduced from both points of view the lesser evil 

 must be chosen. Taking this consideration as my basis, I must 

 confess that the rigid adherence to Art. 50 would produce such 



