22S THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



adjacent were originally portions of the ancient Eoyal Forest of 

 Kingswood and were enclosed at the beginning of the last century. 

 In a few spots here and there the old ericetal vegetation still survives. 

 In otliers the ground is pitted with excavations from which pockets of 

 strontium ore (celestine) have been extracted. Many of these have 

 become ])onds as well as some larger and older pits, the result of clay 

 or marl digging in former days. Thus, while botanically productive, 

 the Common is intei-esting from other points of view. — Jas. W. 

 White. 



REVIEWS. 



Botanical Names of tlie Wild Flowers. What tliey mean. How 

 Fronounced. By Colonel J. S, F. Mackenzie. Pp. ix, 228. 

 London : Holden and Hardingham. 8^/. net. 



The compiler of this neat well-printed and astonishingly cheaply 

 little book is of opinion that many are " prevented trying to learn the 

 names of the wdd flowers because of the uncouth look of their botanical 

 names "; he apparently thinks that this appearance would be modified 

 if folk knew their meaning, and sets to work to explain them. Un- 

 fortunately, however, the idea is better than its execution, and we fear 

 the well-intentioned little volume will tend to perpetuate existing 

 errors as to derivations, while it will certainly promulgate many new 

 ones. Some of these latter are as ingenious as they are inaccurate : a 

 striking example is Mielic1i(yferi, which the Colonel writes " Miel- 

 choferi " and proceeds to derive from the " Greek, mielcho (honey) ; 

 Latin, feri (bearer) ; The very numerous misprints often render the 

 meaning unintelligible : the very first entry affords material for criti- 

 cism, and indicates the style of the book ; it runs : " Ahele (a-be-le). 

 Polish. ' Bialo ' (white) a name for the White Poplar." The name is 

 not trisyllabic (cfr. Mrs. Browning's reference to " six abeles ") ; it 

 is not Polish, but Dutch ; " bialo " would seem to be a misprint for 

 ** bianco " — the tree is called " pioppio bianco " in Italy. Nor is 

 Colonel Mackenzie happier with English names (the inclusion of 

 which is not indicated by the title of the book) : London Pride cer- 

 tainly does not " get its name from the firm of London and Wise, who 

 introduced the ])lant in the early 18th century," as the name was in 

 common use in 1697, and the plant was in general cultivation when 

 Gerard wrote his Herbal (1597)— see Journ. Bot. 1895, 422. The 

 terminology is as original as are some of the derivations : Colonel 

 Mackenzie uses " group " throughout for genus, and the word species 

 is entirely ignored in favour of " second botanical name." 



It would be easy to criticize the little vohime at greater length, 

 but the above indication of its contents will, we think, prove sufficient. 

 There is, we fancy, room for sucli a book, although llandal Alcock's 

 scholarly Botanical Names for English Readers, issued forty years 

 ago (with whicli Col. Mackenzie does not seem to be acquainted) is 

 still in print. Should a second edition of the work under notice be 

 called for, the compiler would do well to submit the proofs to a 

 botanist for coiTection. 



