20 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



lead to unnecessary changes of plant-names, which would cause 

 additional confusion. Not only has this obscure memoir failed 

 to arouse any serious interest among those who are concerned 

 with nomenclature, but European correspondents have assured 

 me that it is hardly likely to be quoted in the future in systematic 



works. 



I may just add that the determinations of the plants referred 

 to in my paper in question are to be found in the account of 

 The Dillenian Herbaria, issued as a volume under the auspices 

 of the Clarendon Press in 1907. Q Claridge Druce> 



I publish the foregoing remarks by Mr. Druce at his special 

 request ; I had told him that I did not think they added any- 

 thing of value to the discussion, but he seems to think that in 

 fairness to him they should be printed, and I have thus no 

 alternative but to comply. 



His first contention rests on the " alignment and type " of the 

 reprint of the Flora Anglica, which, he assumes, differ in some way 

 from the original. He says that he " thought it would be quite 

 evident from [his] statement on p. 159 " of his article in the Scottish 

 Botanical Review that he " was using the reprint " : I can only say 

 that I find no reference to the reprint on the page in question ; 

 indeed, the only allusions I find to the reprint throughout his 

 paper are on pp. 158 and 154, where he says " the figures of 

 the references " are taken from it. There is nothing else to suggest 

 that Mr. Druce had not the original publication before him, and I 

 am surprised to learn that he should not have taken the trouble 

 to consult this. Had he done so, he would have seen that his 

 contention falls at once to the ground, for the " alignment and 

 type" in the Journal of Botany reprint exactly follow those of 

 the original Dissertation, which are identical with those of the 

 reprint in the Amcenitatesr~ It is the more surprising that Mr. 

 Druce should base any argument on the " alignment," as I had 

 especially pointed out in my remarks (p. 313) that " the printing 

 of the Flora in double columns necessitated the placing of the 

 varietal name under that of the species " ; had he referred to 

 either of the originals, which are combined in the reprint, he 

 would have seen that this double-column arrangement occurs in 

 each of them. Mr. Druce's statement that " it was usually the 

 custom of Linnaeus in the Species Plantarum" to print the names 

 of varieties in italics is true only as to the second edition, as he 

 will see if he will turn to the plant under discussion on p. 3 of 

 the first. 



Mr. Druce controverts my statement that "there are no 

 additions to the synonymy" in the second edition of the Species 

 Plantarum. The simplest way of settling this question seems to 

 be to print the synonymy as it stands in the two editions. The 

 first edition has : 



* I may note here that the word " herbac " has been accidentally omitted 

 after " fruticosa " in the J. Bot. reprint. 



