106 THE FLORA OF BERKSHIRE. 



Druce's methods. He retains tins name, but at the end we find the 

 following : — 



'* Ohs. Strictly speaking the generic name Alsine takes pre- 

 cedence of SU'Ilaria, as it comes first in the Species Plantaruvi, and 

 has been adopted in preference in the American Check-list." 



Now it is quite true that some American botanists have agreed 

 that priority of place in a book entitles to precedence; but the 

 suggestion is not so much as referred to in the Berlin rules, and is 

 opposed both to general practice and common sense ; while the 

 adoption of a name in " the American Check-list" is hardly con- 

 vincing. Moreover, Mr. Druce does not himself follow this rule — 

 either here or elsewhere — e. g. under Buda and other places. What 

 he does is to increase synonymy by citing as " synonyms " names 

 here published for the first time ! Thus under SteUaria palustrU 

 we find '^Alsine palustr'ni, mihi, not of Kellogg"; under S. umhrosa 

 Opiz (here retained as a species), " Alsine umbrosa mihi." Under 

 S. aqiiatica is a mysterious synonym " Alsine aquatica, leges" ; this 

 is corrected on p. cxcix to " Britton in Mem. Torr. Club, v. (1894) 

 356." "Leges," however, as an authority is found on p. 151, in 

 the synonymy under Vicia gemella ; I could not imagine what was 

 meant, but Mr. Druce kindly informs me that he had intended thus 

 to signify that the names to which it was appended should stand, if 

 the "laws" which insist on the retention of the old specific name 

 are observed, but that on reconsideration he struck it out of his MS., 

 so that its retention in one or two places is accidental. 



A considerable amount of space is wasted in useless repetitions, 

 and unnecessary citations ; as well as over records of the casuals 

 — often of the most trivial kind. Thus Couringia orientalis, which 

 occurred twice by a railway and once by a racecourse, has five 

 lines of synonymy and seven of gossip''' about the name : for 

 C. austriaca, Mr. Druce not only gives this new name (it having 

 hitherto been called Co7iringia), but kindly suggests another which 

 may be employed in case Coiiringia be disallowed — all this about a 

 plant which once occurred on some waste ground ! Does Mr. 

 Druce seriously suppose that the botanists of the world will feel 

 bound to consult the Flora uf Berkshire in order to feel sure that he 

 has not in some obscure paragraph suggested a new name for some 

 plant which once appeared on a rubbish-heap in that county ? 



I propose to give in a separate article an example of Mr. Druce's 

 treatment of species and their nomenclature ; and now pass to a 

 consideration of two or three of his numerous varieties. 



In a note in this Journal for 1897 (p. 145) I expressed a view 

 which is indeed common among botanists as to the undesirability 

 of raising to varietal rank plants which differ from the type in 

 some trivial or even accidental character. Mr. Druce is an old 

 offender in this matter, and it is to be regretted that in his new 

 Flora he pursues what I cannot but feel to be a mistaken course 



* Mr. Druce says "this spelling appears to he a misprint for Conringia" — 

 a somewhat excessively cautious statement, as may be seen by consultmg Mr. 

 Jackson's note in Journ. Bot. 1888, 90. 



