THE NEW "index KEWENSIS.'' 101 



Dr. Dyer, in his prefatory remarks, says that the " volume of 

 work" represented by the List "probably is not surpassed by that 

 of any other institution in the world." He can hardly mean this 

 to be taken literally. One section alone of the British Museum — 

 that of Natural History — has an output which, measured by bulk 

 alone, enormously exceeds that of Kew Gardens; and the nineteen- 

 page list of Natural History Catalogues consists mainly of serious 

 publications of some hundreds of pages, whereas a very large 

 proportion of the papers in the Kew List are of one or two pages, 

 or of even less bulk. Moreover, the Museum list is confined to 

 catalogues of the Museum collections ; and although their authors 

 contribute to current literature, such contributions are not claimed 

 as Museum work. If Mr. Jackson had constructed his list on 

 similar lines, it would have assumed comparatively small dimen- 

 sions, but would more accurately have represented the work done 

 at Kew. It is ridiculous to class such papers as Mr. Hiern's 'Note 

 on Botanical Nomenclature,' Mr. Hemsley's ' School Gardens in 

 Sweden,' or Mr. Dyer's 'Joseph Decaisne' among the publications 

 of Kew Gardens. But the climax of absurdity is reached when we 

 are called upon to regard a speech by Sir John Lubbock in the 

 House of Commons in 1872 as a Kew publication ; if this finds a 

 place, it is difficult to see on what grounds Mr. Jackson excludes 

 the numerous questions and answers in the same illustrious assembly 

 as to the delay in publishing various Kew Guides and Colonial Floras. 



Even from a bibliographical point of view, the List is badly 

 done. According to the prefatory note, it is confined to "smaller 

 publications either by members of the Kew staff or by other 

 botanists working there " — i. e. at Kew ; " articles of merely 

 ephemeral interest have not been included in the list." Let us 

 take the various heads of this definition. The "smaller publi- 

 cations" include the Botanical Matjazine, the Genera Fllicum (these 

 stand first and third on the list), the JJotamj of the Antarctic Voi/ar/e, 

 Victoria rcyia (an elephant folio!). The Hhododendrons of Sikkivi 

 Himalaya, and the like : if these be smaller publications, what are 

 large ones ? It is not easy to see why such papers as that published 

 by Mr. Dyer in this Journal for 1871 on Oxford plants are included, 

 for Mr. Dyer was not then a member of the Kew staff, and the only 

 herbarium referred to in the paper is that of the British Museum. 

 But, this being included, one wonders why the excellent adaptation 

 of Figuier's Vc<ii'tahle World, "revised by an eminent botanist," and 

 published in 1872, is omitted from the enumeration of Mr. Dyer's 

 works. The exclusion of " articles of merely ephemeral interest" 

 is purely theoretical — surely no more extensive collection of pot- 

 boilers was ever brought together. The Gardeners' Chronicle say's : 

 "The selection, if anything, errs on the side of over-elasticity"; 

 and every page gives abundant examples of articles harmless 

 enough, and even useful in their way, which "had their day" and 

 might well have " ceased to be." Is a column of notes on "Hardy 

 Water and Bog-loving Plants" of such lasting importance that Mr. 

 Jackson should have thought it worth while to explain that its 

 author was " D. D[ewar]"? And— to take half a dozen titles 



