152 * THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



my task is bv no means ended, but it may be worth wliile, if only in 

 order to reawaken interest and increase field-work, for me to state 

 some of the fairly definite conclusions which have, so far, been 

 reached. 



Our early nineteenth century botanists unquestionably knew these 

 plants far better than their successors. It is interesting to trace tiie 

 gradual increase in Smith's grasp of the subject, from the Flora 

 Britannica, through Eiu/lisli Botant/, to his linal arrangement in 

 the second volume of the EngUsh Flora (1828), which was largely 

 influenced by D. Don's Monograph in Trans. Linn. Soc. xiii. 341, &c. 

 (read Feb. 20, 1821); Don's descriptions are very clear and good. 

 Smith quoted Haworth's Miscellanea Xaturalia (1808), but does not 

 seem to have known his later and better book. 



Babington figured some of Don's segregates in Engl. Bot. Sup])le- 

 ment, and did useful work ; but Syme's treatment, in the third edition, 

 leaves much to be desired, being mainly based on dried material. 



Mr. Baker's account in this Journal for 1870 (viii. pp. 280-290) 

 marks a new dejmrture ; he had evidently come under the influence 

 of the Bentham school, which discouraged the multiplication of 

 species. Nowadays, the general tendency of students is towards a 

 rather free use of the term ; this, I believe, is more true to natural 

 facts, and realh^ more scientific, though it may easily be (and often is) 

 carried too far. Professor Engler\s Maiio(jra])hie (1872) followed 

 Mr. Baker's lines, in dealing with the Hypnoid group ; he was a 

 young man when he wrote it, and does not a])))ear — from internal 

 evidence — to have seen either the Linnean Herbarium or authentic 

 material of our endemic forms. Sii* J. D. Hooker, in his Stvdenfs 

 Flora (3rd and last edition, 188-4), ado])ted much the same plan. 



In order to form a sound judgement about the status of a given 

 plant, even the most careful study of types, figures, and descriptions 

 will not suffice. One needs to know it in its wild stations ; and a 

 great deal can be learned by cultivation, which allows it to be 

 examined throughout the year, and also illustrates the transient 

 changes due to wet or di-y seasons, heavy or light soils, varying 

 aspects, &c. Broadly speaking, 1 have found that the foi-ms grown 

 in my garden keep sur])risingly constant; many of them flower freely, 

 bvit a few are shy bloouiers, and one or two soon died out. owing to 

 unsuitable conditions. 



Last, year 1 had an interesting corres])ondence with Mr. F. X. 

 Williams, which hel])ed us both a good deal. Our o])inions (as a rule 

 arrived at independently) agreed in the main, except as to one or two 

 ))oints of nomenclature. 



The London Catalo(/ue list (tenth edition. 1908) is, I think, too 

 short, taking its average species-rank, or that of the C(inihrid(/e British 

 Flora, as a standaid. The war has hindered my undertaking some 

 hoped-for Irish excursions ; but the Galtee Mountains, and several 

 western counties {e. (/. the limestone glens of Leitrim and Shgo), 

 should add useful data. 



S. CESPTTOSA L., Sp. Plant, ed 1 (needlessly changed to ccespifosa 

 in the second edition; both forms are classical), in part (txchuling 

 the svnonvms), and of Herb. Linn. I : not of Koch, ki-. — Very rai-e in 



