BULLETIN OF MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION. 451 



on cover and title. The number for December, 1896, also appeared 

 in August, and contains the statement that "an absolutely regular 

 monthly issue . . . has been approached as nearly as circum- 

 stances would allow" — which shows how great is the force of 

 "circumstances," seeing that even Kew is unable to cope with it. 

 Tliis number is mainly occupied with a general index to the first ten 

 volumes (1887-96), which, by an extraordinary blunder, is stated on 

 the cover to be for " 1897-98" ! The index would have been more 

 useful if it had contained some reference to the numerous corrections 

 of names which have appeared in these pages and elsewhere. 



The issue of this December number enables us to give a list of 

 the actual dates* at which the numbers for 1896 were published, as 

 noted in the Stationery Office imprint on each ; by this means the 

 mischief caused by the erroneous dating may to some extent be 

 neutralized : — 



Date on wrapper and front page. Date of issue. 



January, 1896. January, 1896. 



February. March. 



March 

 April. 

 May. ) 

 June. I 



July. 

 August 



August. 

 October. 

 October. 



November. October. 



December. August, 1897. 



The contents of this year's numbers amply justify the title of 

 the Bulletin to be a purveyor of "miscellaneous information." 

 There are many reprints from various sources, and of all degrees 

 of value — or of none, for it is impossible to regard a "popular" and 

 inaccurate account of the spindle-tree, reprinted from the St. James's 

 Gazette, as worthy of preservation in the pages of a Government publi- 

 cation. Prefaces to various Kew works are also included, with ex- 

 tracts from official reports aud correspondence, the latter in the most 

 unabbreviated form. Occasionally quotations are given from back 

 numbers of the Bulletin itself! and from this and other indications 

 we are inclined to think that the irregularity of publication is due 

 as much to deficiency of matter as to want of method. 



Conspicuous amid the uinmuin (latlierum are two papers of some 

 botanical importance. One, Mr. Massee's " Mycologic Flora of the 

 Royal Gardens," will be e-ipecially interesting to British botanists, 

 who may be inclined to regret that it appears in so out-of-the-way 



* We hope that Dr. Britten will not, as on a former occasion (see p. 64), 

 mistake the above list of dates for those of the Bulletin of the Torrey Club. We 

 have not observed that Dr. Britton has published any correction of his error, on 

 the strength of which he rebuked us somewhat severely. It appears to us 

 that when a man has made a mistake, the right course is to own up, and, if 

 necessary, to apologise — but this is probably an old-fashioned view. 



2 G 2 



