272 BIBLIOGEAPHICAL NOTES. 



Mr. Druce indeed might have contended that Horkelia should 

 stand on the ground that the spelling in Bartling is Woljia, a name 

 ah'eady occupied by a genus of iScitauiinciB ; and it may be urged by 

 some that, even if we accept WoJffia as the corrected spelling, the 

 two names are too much alike for both to be maintained. Strictly 

 speaking, however, Bartling's names are both numina nudu : not 

 only is there no diagnosis of the genus, but it is placed among other 

 " Genera monocotyledonea dubia 1. incert^ sedis," and is followed 

 by the words "An Najadea?" If this view be accepted, the genus 

 dates from Schleiden's citation, where it stands "WolffiaHorkel 

 Msc. Horkelia Reichenbach." Mr. Jackson does not cite Wuljia 

 from Bartling at all, although it is the earliest occurrence of the 

 name as applied to the lemnaceous plant. But this point I do not 

 propose to discuss : it is certain that, had Mr. Druce known of this 

 misspelling, he would not have omitted to refer to it. 



Another result of citing references at second-hand is the promul- 

 gation of mistakes into which even the most careful are apt to fall. 

 Mr. Jackson quotes '^Crepis succisafolia Tausch in Flora, ix (1828) 

 I. Erg. 79"; this Mr. Druce cites' as "Tausch, 'Fl.' ix (1828)": 

 if he had checked his reference he would have seen that " ix." is a 

 slip for " xi." Mr. Druce may say that it is not always easy to 

 check references, to which it may be replied that it is not incumbent 

 on him to propose changes, and that he has no right to do so until 

 he has taken some steps towards being sure of his ground. 



" Ulex Gallii, Planch., 'Ann. Sc. Nat.' (1849), p. 213, is ante- 

 dated by U. provincUdis, Le Gall, ' Fl. Morb.,' 128." Mr. Druce 

 may plead that he has sometimes been led astray by the Index 

 Kewensis, or by his interpretation of it ; but in this instance he has 

 no one to blame but himself. Le Gall published his Flore du 

 Morhihan in 1852 ; Planchon's paper, as Mr. Druce tells us, was 

 printed in 1849 ; * how then can Le Gall's name antedate U. Gallii ? 

 Planchon (/. c), having presumably seen the proofs, cites " Le Gall, 

 Fl. Morbih. {imklit.)," and names the plant Gallii in compliment to 

 Le Gall, who thought he had U. provincialis Lois. — the name under 

 which the plant appears in his Vlore. Mr. Jackson rightly says : — 

 *' provincialis Le Gall, Fl. Morb. 128 = Galhi " — he does not seem 

 to have noticed Planchon's earlier citation of the name. I know 

 not on what possible ground Mr. Druce can justify his assertion. 

 Mr. Bennett! rightly says that " correlation of specimens as well as 

 hunting through books" is necestary before names can be satis- 

 factorily changed ; it would appear from Mr. Druce's action that 

 he thinks even the books may be dispensed with. 



A further point of criticism is suggested by Mr. Druce's paper 

 with regard to abbreviations and references. The former should 

 never be so abridged as to be unintelligible or doubtful ; Mr. Jack- 

 son's abbreviations are excellent, and it is a pity that Mr. Druce 

 did not adopt them. But "Herb. Br." for "Herbarium Britannicum," 



* Here again is an instance of insufficient citation : three volumes of the 

 Annales bear the date 1849, but Mr. Druce does not think it worth while to 

 specify which is referred to, although Mr. Jackson cites the number (xi). 



t Ami. Scott. Nat. Hist. April, 1896, 111. 



