THE GENUS IRIS 105 



details which, small in themselves, greatly affect the usefulness 

 of a book. Thus the list of plates faces the introduction, but 

 no reference is given to list or figures in the (in many respects 

 excellent) index, so that one consulting that is left in doubt as to 

 whether a species is figured or not. The notes on "The Litera- 

 ture of Iris" are disappointing. Among pre-Linnean literature, 

 Clusius is practically the only author treated ; we should at least 

 have expected some account of the numerous species described 

 and figured by Parkinson in his Paradisus. If it had been 

 thought desirable to discuss the uses of Iris in folk-medicine, 

 this should have been done more fully. One of the funniest 

 slips we remember to have seen in any book is in the supposed 

 quotation from Turner's Herball which runs : " Of Xyris or Spourg- 

 haurt ; The vertues of the Dichebur," &c. Mr. Dykes has trans- 

 posed " the vertues of the Dichebur" (Xantliium) — which appear 

 at the top of the folio and are a continuation from the preceding — 

 to below the name of Xyris, with the above curious result. We 

 should have expected to find some account of the gradual bringing 

 of the species into cultivation ; even under the species them- 

 selves such information is lacking for the earlier introductions. 



Mr. Dykes tells us that he confines his citations of specimens 

 to those which he has himself seen, but he does not seem to have 

 recorded all that have come under his notice, even when these 

 are of considerable importance. For example, in the long list 

 of " unidentified specific names " we find three from Miller's 

 Gardeners Dictionary : I. picta, I. sativa, and I. bicolor. Miller's 

 specimens of each of these are in the National Herbarium and 

 must have passed through Mr. Dykes's hands." Solan der's type 

 specimens of I. cristata in the National Herbarium are not 

 referred to (the locality " prope Ohio" should have been added 

 to the reference to Bartram's specimen), nor are those of I. lurida 

 (also types) mentioned. This defect seems to prevail throughout 

 the book, e.g., the National Herbarium contains the types of 

 Pallas 's i". flavissima and a specimen from Kitaibel of /. arenaria 

 W. & K., which Mr. Dykes unites with it; but the importance of 

 these in determining the species is in no way indicated. More- 

 over, it may be pointed out that this limitation of records is likely 

 to mislead; for example, the entries under Great Britain for 

 1. faztidissima are limited to Dorset, Isle of Wight, "Ventor" 

 [Ventnor ? ] , Loch Leven, and Godalming — in this order repre- 

 senting the Kew, Berlin, and Vienna herbaria, the last being 



* Mr. Baker (Handbook of Iridece, p. 12) places I. picta and I. sativa under 

 I. versicolor: Miller's specimen of the former is not very satisfactory; the 

 latter is named by Mr. Baker in the Herbarium I. Pseudacorus, to which Mr. 

 Dykes doubtfully assigns it. I. bicolor Miller is not cited in the Handbook, but 

 Miller's specimen agrees well with I. sibirica. Mr. Dykes places Miller's I. mari- 

 tima under the species last named, but Mr. Baker rightly names it versicolor, 

 although in his book he places the species under sibirica. We do not under- 

 stand on what principle books or figures are cited; thus, under 7m fcetidissima, 

 " O'Brien & Parkinson, Wild Fl. Undercliff " is quoted— the book also appears 

 in the bibliography on the strength of this one reference— but such easily 

 accessible books as English Botany and Curtis's Flora Londinensis find no place. 



Journal of Botany. — Vol. 51. [March, 1913.] i 



