FLORA OF TEIGN BASIN, S. DEVON. Zdy 



Hiern, in accordance with Article 50. So, too, with certain 

 nomina niida printed in the Kew Keport for 1880. They represent 

 the results of hard work at a troublesome set of plants, and are 

 printed for the convenience of those to whom plants have been 

 distributed, and no writer on the Kubber-yielding species of 

 Landolphia and Willughheia could be justified in neglecting them.''' 



I see no difficulty, then, in accepting the names in both the 

 columns printed at p. 54 of Mr. Britten's article. Those in the 

 first are proper and necessary in original XDublication ; those in the 

 second may be legitimate and correct for use by subsequent writers. 



A CONTEIBUTION TOAVARDS A FLORA OF THE 



TEIGN BASIN, S. DEVON. 



By the Rev. W. Moyle Rogers, F.L.S. 



(Continued from p. 2C9.) 



Carex dividsa,. Good. — Trusham ; Ash ton ; Haldon ; Chudleigh 

 (Mr. Parker in Stewart's Flora of Torquay) ; Bovey Tracey ; by 

 Pen Wood. In lanes and fairly sheltered places still more 

 frequent than the last. 



0. stelhdata, Good. — This, with C. IcBvyjata, Sm., and C. lepidu- 

 carpa, Tausch., are the commonest wet land sedges of the district. 



C. remota, L., and C. sylvatica, Huds. — The common wood and 

 ditch species. The only specimen in the Jones Herbarium 

 labelled C. axillaris (" Underbill Lane, Lympston"), appears to be 

 ordinary C. remota. I may add that the collection includes 

 C. Pseudo-cyperm, from "Haven Banks, near Exeter," and C. pal- 

 lesceiis, from "Ilsington;" but otherwise it is of no value as 

 representing the rare species given for the county in Fl. Dev., 



* Attention has been called to these in a brief note by the Editor (see ' Journ. 

 Bot.,' 1881, p. 381). I must confess myself entii'ely unable to apj)reciate the 

 ground upon which their publication is condemned as " very reprehensible." It 

 may from the strict technical standpoint be urged that, as a rule, it is undesirable 

 to print names of new species without descriptions (and this is perhaps what is 

 meant) ; in the case in question, however, it is distinctly state J that descriptions 

 will shortly follow. 



[Perhaps "undesirable" would be a better word than " very reprehensible" 

 in the passage referred to ; but the inconvenience attaching to the publication 

 of the names referred to are, I think, obvious. Jn the first place, no author's 

 name is appended to the new species, as is customary in such cases; and 

 .ilthough we are told that "the assistant-director proposes to communicate. . . . 

 descriptions of the new species to the Linnean Society," it is not clear that he is 

 the authority for them, nor is his name given, so far as we are aware, anywhere 

 in the Keport. Again, while the Report is dated Januai'y 1, 1881, it did not as 

 a matter of fact appear until December of that year; and that a difference of 

 an even shorter period of time may affect priority may be seen by referring to 

 this Journal for 1874, p. 152. In hardly any instance is any distinguishing 

 characteristic of the new species given, so that they seem to me simply nomina 

 nuda until authenticated by the promised paper in the Linnean Transactions. — 

 Ed. JouPvN. Box.] 



