224 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



same bank, and this is Gloucestershire ; and so it goes on till close 

 to Tewkesbury. Here the Watsonian difficulties cease, for the 

 Severn once again becomes the boundary. 



As work at the Flora has made the question one of practical 

 importance, I propose (1) to disregard the Thames and Severn 

 Canal until it enters Gloucestershire near Cerney Wick. Thus, all 

 that part of the county about Lechlade and Kempsford will be in 

 v.-c. 33 ; it obviously belongs to E. Gloucestershire, and is better 

 there. (2) To take the division along the western channel of the 

 Severn about Gloucester. In Watson's day the traffic ran that 

 way. Now in these latter times the eastern channel has become 

 the chief waterway, as I understand from Mr. A. J. Stephens, of 

 Gloucester. Thus the Hams and Alney Island remain in v.-c. 33. 

 (3) To reckon Forthampton parish in West Gloucester. I would 

 rather it were put to East Gloucester, as it is closely associated 

 with Tewkesbury in record work. But it seems better to deal 

 with Watson's division faithfully. 



The following list — very imperfect, but I hope fairly accurate — 

 serves to show several omissions from Top. Bot. which are not 

 easy to understand. Publications and other sources of information 

 that are far from obscure seem not to have been quite exhausted. 

 Nowadays so many different publications are used for the record 

 of plants seen — some of them with only a very remote bearing 

 on tiie subject of topographical botany— that it becomes easier to 

 miss information. 



Both Watson and others — including the present writer — have 

 made slips in the assignment of records between the two vice-coun- 

 ties. A locality " Minchinhampton Common above Brimscombe " 

 was authoritatively placed in East Gloucester. I have seen a 

 statement made by a botanist well acquainted with the county 

 that the Gloucester and Berkeley Canal was in v.-c. 34, whereas 

 the canal is cut into two not very unequal lengths by the Thames 

 and Severn Canal; one — and the larger — part is, therefore, in 

 v.-c. 33. Again, a record from a spot between Bath and Bristol 

 was put to v.-c. 33 by Watson. Necessary corrections in such 

 matters are made in the following list. 



Dr. G. O. St. Brody, of Gloucester, made a very valuable 

 collection of Gloucestershire plants from 1863 to 1871. The 

 herbarium is now in good order, and safely housed at the Glou- 

 cester Museum. Eeferences to him in the following list are 

 numerous ; for a considerable number of records rest on the 

 authority of his specimens : but there is good reason to accept 

 his bona fides. 



St. Brody, however, had the disconcerting habit of preserving 

 sheets for species which he only knew of as reported from the 

 county ; the report being usually traceable to some old publication. 

 He seems, in such cases, to have got specimens elsewhere and 

 put them on his sheets. At least, that appears to me the most 

 probable interpretation of the facts : sometimes, for instance, he 

 mentions a species as " reported " from Gloucestershire, but has 

 no specimen in illustration. I do not believe his language can 



