232 
Plants, p. 92, of B. Hamiltoniana, Wall., Cat. 7882, with B. montana, 
Willd., is so far justified that we have no means of learnin 
without reference to Willdenow’s Herbarium whether his montana 
is the same as Roxburgh’s montana. Pending the appearance of 
Gohrmacher’s work on this perplexing genus, it is chiefly guess-work 
matching any Briedelia with at least the older descriptions ; but 
the very marked form from the Western Ghats which has been 
written up by some one in the Kew Herbarium as“B. Hamiltoniana,” 
seems altogether different from Roxburgh’s montana, and is no 
improbably an endemic and so far undescribed species. At p. 47 
we cannot quite reconcile ourselves to “ Artemisia parviflora, Buch.- 
Ham., ex Roxb. Hort. Beng.” In the first place, although it may. 
seem @ very minor point, the correct citation of Francis Buchanan's 
labours might have been followed. That eminent worker's 
patronymic was Buchanan, which in later life he formally exchanged 
for the surname of Hamilton. He should, therefore, be quoted as 
“ Buchanan, (afterwards Hamilton)” or for 
uchanan simply, but “Buchanan-Hamilton” or “ Hamilton- 
Buchanan ” he never was, and both these forms are objectionable. — 
In this case the citation falls to the ground anyway, because, muc 
A, japonica of Thunberg, in Fl. J ap. 310 (1874), which in any case 
had priority, so that Thunberg’s name should be adopted for this 
widely diffused and, for an Artemisia, little varying species. _ 
The author is to be heartily congratulated on the completion of 
ina series of most excellent descriptions, as regards their distribution 
and their economic aspects; but as regards the latter, mention 
should be made of the carefully framed and very lucid keys that 
J. B.D: 
