Cliv^ FLORA OF BERKSHIRE 



consists of a large number of plants which were recorded before 

 Bicheno's time, but in many cases these previous records do not give 

 the locality or never appeared in print, being to be found only in old 

 MSS. or attached to specimens. It is too long to be given here, but 

 full justice is done to Mr. Bicheno's work, and his more precise and 

 accurate records will be found under the plants he mentions in the 

 present work. 



In addition to the above Bicheno also gives the following records, 

 which are probably erroneous : — Lepidium latifolium, TUlaea muscosa, 

 Dianihus cJeltoicles, and Gentiana campestris. 



We see then that Bicheno added thirty-one species to our flora, and 

 simultaneously with Dr. Noehden eleven more. He also gave precise 

 localities for twenty-seven other species, which had either been in- 

 definitely recorded, or whose localities had not been published. 



To Sir James E. Smith's English Flora he contributed records of 

 Ruhus glandulosus [R. Koehleri], R. nitidus [_R. plicatus], R. leucostachys, and 

 Eosa sijstyla, and these are first records made by himself alone ; the 

 latter had been published previously on Bicheno's authority in Wood's 

 monograph in the Transactions of the Linnean Society. In Babington's 

 British Rubi, Ruhus Balfourianus is given from Sheen on Mr. Bicheno's 

 authority. 



The following letter of Bicheno's is preserved in Sir James Smith's 

 herbarium in the rooms of the Linnean Society : * I searched Stoken- 

 church [Oxfordshire] last summer for Limes [Tiliae] and found three, 

 Tilia parvifolia plentifully, T. Europaea sparingly, of T. coralli'na only one 

 tree. I have no doubt of the last being the plant you have described 

 in Eees under that name, and that it is T. grandifolia of Ehrhart 

 (T. platyphyUos of Ventenat). Both Europaea and Corallina appear to be 

 planted at Stokenchurch.' This letter was written about 1824. In 

 1823 Bicheno writes to Sir James Smith : * The specimen I have 

 enclosed of a plant from Snelsmore Common near Newbury I have 

 long looked on as a good species, and Mr. Borrer, Mr. E. Forster, and 

 myself had called it Rubus ericetorum. It is not common in other 

 places.' The plant is probably R. x>licatus, W. and N., recorded in 

 Smith's Flora as R. nitidus '. 



Several of the plants mentioned in the New Botanist's Guide as 

 'Winch's add.' were really gathered by Mr, Bicheno; it is probable 

 that specimens may exist in the Winch herbarium which the Linnean 

 Society thought it wise to give to the Museum of Newcastle-on-Tyne. 

 The plants in the Winch MS. gathered by Mr. Bicheno which appear 



1 For further information the Gentleman'' s 3lagazine^ xxxv. (new series) may 

 be consulted ; also NichoU's History of the Irish Poor Laiv, London (1856) ; 

 Report of the Royal Society of Tasmania. (1851); The Dictionary of National 

 Biography., vol. v. p. i ; Proc. of Linn. Soc. ii. 181 ; Hooker, Journ. Bot. iii. 

 p. 251 (1851). 



