THE FLORA OF BERKSHIRE. 105 



800, of which at least a quarter might have been omitted, not only 

 without detriment, but with x^ositive gain to its usefulness. Take 

 the introduction. Mr. Druce thinks it necessary to give not only 

 the plants characteristic of each geological formation, for which 

 there is something to be said — why is " Kimmeridge " always spelt 

 with only one m ? — but the flora of very numerous localities 

 receives a separtite enumeration: thus p. Ixxx begins — " The Ken- 

 net valley, in addition to the plants already mentioned, affords, 

 among others, the following interesting species," the whole remain- 

 ing portion of the page being occupied with names of plants. 

 Nearly a hundred pages are taken up with biographical matter — 

 some of it paraphrased from similar accounts in the Flora of 

 Oxfordshire — connected with those who have contributed, however 

 slightly, to a knowledge of Berkshire plants : this would make, 

 with some few corrections, an admirable foundation for a history 

 of British botany, but is absolutely out of place in a local flora. 

 The space thus lavished might well have been occupied by some 

 account of the mosses, fungi, and other cryptogams ; it is strange 

 at this date to find that no information whatever is given about 

 these components of the flora. 



Some connection, however, exists between these matters and 

 the flora of the county ; but this cannot be said for a vast deal of 

 the information given. Mr. Druce seems to think the book affords 

 a fitting opportunity for introducing to the botanical world his 

 views about nomenclature, whether of orders, genera, species, or 

 varieties. This I consider a mistake. If his conclusions are worth 

 printing, a local flora is emphatically not the place for them. 

 What is the advantage, in a local flora, of substituting " Gunner- 

 acese " for " Haloragacese " ? To make matters worse, Mr. Druce 

 wastes space by quoting synonyms for his orders — sometimes with 

 absurd results, as when he cites CassiacecB of Link (Handb. ii. 135) 

 as synonymous with Legu.minoscB.'^^ Link places Cassiacece as 

 Ordo iii. of his Subclass LeguminoscB, and, as might be expected 

 from its name, the order does not contain a single British plant ! 



Of course this citation of synonyms occupies in the aggregate a 

 considerable amount of space. Mr. Druce says he has given them 

 (for the species) from various British books and the Index Kewensis, 

 ' ' in order to make the work more useful to those readers whose 

 botanical library is limited." Had he been content with this no 

 great harm would have been done, but unfortunately this is far 

 from being the case. Four out of the seven synonyms given under 

 Buda rubra do not come under this rule ; nor do either of those 

 cited for Stellaria uligijiosa. As a matter of fact, the Flora is made 

 a pretext for foisting upon botanical literature a number of new 

 names, both of species and varieties, which seem to be created mainly 

 in order that Mr. Druce may have the pleasure of putting " mihi " 

 after them. The treatment of the genus Stellaria exemplifies Mr. 



* On p. clxxxvii Mr. Druce speaks of the name ^^ Leguminiferce^^ as "so 

 generally used" that he has " not attempted to replace" it ; yet throughout the 

 body of the book he calls it Leguminosa. 



Journal of Botany. — Vol. 36. [March, 1898.] i 



