2G0 THE JOURNAL OF BOTAXT 



to sixteenth century botanical authors, show that he was well 

 acquainted with the botany of the period. Mr. Roberts quotes 

 numerous ]iarallelisms which " seem to show that [he] must have 

 used Sales])ury's Llysieulyfr in compiling his Lutin-Welsh lexicon." 



The chai)ter which discusses the authorship of the Herbal is an 

 exceedinjTflv careful piece of work, containing evidence drawn from 

 the book itself connected with places named therein and a careful 

 comparison of the ortliography with that of Salesburv's undoubted 

 work. For it must be borne in mind that the definite statement 

 as to. authorship made in the D.N.B., supported though it is bv a 

 note in the MS. which is reproduced in facsimile as a title-page to 

 the book, is not to be accepted without question, although the 

 investigations bv Peter and their still more searching extension by 

 Mr. Roberts point almost certainly to this conclusion. 



For a knowledge of the nature of the Herbal we are indebted 

 entirely to Mr. Roberts, as the work itself is written in Welsh and 

 there is no English translation. The two chief authors to whom 

 the writer was indebted for much of his subject-matter are Leonhard 

 Fuehs (whose name he writes " phwchsiws ") and William Turner, 

 whom he describes as " gwr mawT ei ystryw ar adnabod Llysie " 

 (a man of great skill in recognising plants). From the De Historia 

 iSfirjn'um of the former the greater part of the Welsh text has 

 been translated, and the order of the descriptions is followed : from 

 Tui-ner he took " the identification, the English names, and the 

 liabitats of many of the plants." "The only portions that appear 

 to be original additions are the Welsh names of the plants described, 

 many of which, no doubt, he got from Welsh manuscripts ; some 

 references to places where he had found certain of the plants growing; 

 a few^ personal allusions, wdiich are valuable because of the light they 

 tln-ow on the question of the authorship of the work ; and an occa- 

 sional bit of folklore, such as that about the Welsh custom of placing 

 the Mugwort [Artemisia Absinthium'] under the eaves of houses on 

 ^Midsummer's Eve." Mr. Roberts (pp. xxvii-xix) has some interesting 

 remarks on the Welsh names, the identification of wliich in the notes 

 is not meant to be final, in view of the uncertainty and confusion in 

 tlieir use and the inadequate and ambiguous nature of the descriptions 

 in the Llysieuhjfr. 



The text is accompanied throughout by numerous explanatory 

 notes and by copious quotations from Fuchs and Turner, with occa- 

 sional references to other books, of which a list is given : there is also 

 an excellent index and glossary. The book is in every respect a 

 monument of painstaking scholarship. 



BOOK-NOTES, NEWS, etc. 



An interesting correspondence has been appearing in the Garden 

 relating to the scentlessness of "Musk" {Mimulus moscJiatus L.). 

 Tliis scentlessness has become general, but a correspondent writeS 

 that a plant appeared in a cottage garden (place not stated) from 

 which cuttings liave been taken and eagerly applied for. " The 

 first application was from Kew Gardens, who wrote that thev had 



