'2^ TllK .1(»IR>AL OF UUTANi 



up to 2963*. The notes upon these contain, as always, much matter 

 of interest to British botanists, a few items of which we propose, as is 

 customary, to extract for the benefit of our readers. A large number, 

 however, relate to critical genera, and for these — Viola, JRubus, Rosa, 

 Euphrasia, Carex, and the Hke — reference must be made to the 

 Report itself. 



A few points for criticism suggest themselves as we turn over the 

 pages. Barharea vulgaris var. divaricata is incoiTectly cited as of 

 " bver " : it was published (not as a variety, but as a form) in the 

 Flora of Middlesex, p. 29 (1869) by Trimen and Dyer, who should 

 be cited jointly to any new name published therein. The inile 

 which pi-evails in the National Herbarium as to not printing names 

 existing in MS. but not published might with advantage be generally 

 observed; such publication seldom serves any useful pm-pose and 

 needlessly increases synonymy : a name " suggested " for the plant 

 just refenvd to, but hitherto unpublished, might well have remained 

 unreconled. 



The notes under Erophila and Capsella suggest that the distinctions 

 in the forms of these are somewhat slight and that opinions differ 

 widely concerning them : we doubt whether Mott's varietal names 

 sfenocarpa It/ rata and stenocarpa coronopifolia (under C. Bursa- 

 pastoris) can be recognized as valid, although we note that the Report 

 inserts in each case a hyphen which is not in the original publication. 

 The (juestion as to what is sufficient to constitute a variet;\', nameable 

 as such, arises in connection with the yellow-fruited form of Viburnum 

 O pill us named " xar.Jlai'a mihi " by Mr. Horwood. The form seems 

 permanent in the locality given, but, apart from the colour of the 

 fruit, the plant appears to present no other distinctive characters of 

 importance, and the occurrence of " distinctly intermediate " specimens 

 with " light red and yellow fruit" in the same locality suggests that 

 the plant is hardly entitled to varietal rank. 



We are a little inclined to doubt whether it is worth while to print 

 all the contradictory opinions of experts ; this, however, has the 

 advantage of stimulating the tyro to individual investigation, although 

 it must shatter his confidence in those whom he has been accustomed 

 to regard as authorities. Some of the divergencies — e. g. under Ero- 

 jihila and Euphrasia — arise from the fact that in the same gathering 

 more than one species was represented, and that the plants sent to 

 ex])erts were hence not identical. As to Euphrasia, we hope shortly 

 to publisli a study of the British species by Mr. Cedric Bucknall which 

 will, we think, i)rove of great assistance to students of this difficult 

 genus. 



We note with satisfaction the absence of rubbish-heap botany, the 

 few aliens included being such as ])resent pomts of botanical interest 

 such as are given by Mr. Wilmott in his note in Anchnsa ojjicinalis. 

 There are indications that the imjwrtance of cultivation as a test of 

 the value of critical forms is l)ecoming recognized. 



The following are the items we have selected for quotation : — 

 lianunculus Iriparfifus DC. (Jide Dr. Moss). — Near Brocken- 

 Imrst, New Forest, S, Hants, v.c. H, flowers April 10, fruit May 19, 



