VoL. xIV. (8) PRESERVATION OF PLANTS 265 
trippers and villagers, these include the above and others 
rarer locally. But prosecutions, as the law now stands, 
for the rooting up of a few primroses or daffodils, if at the 
same time this caused damage to land, would be very 
difficult to conduct, and would probably bring an Associa- 
tion into great disfavour, doing more harm than good, as 
regards the protection of plants. With regard to prim- 
roses, ferns, and daffodils, if they are fairly common where 
such persons might happen to root some up, the damage 
done would be small, and prosecutions would call for a 
general denunciation. If the plants are not common in any 
particular locality where they are being rooted up, and 
with regard to other plants of a rarer nature which might 
appeal to trippers and villagers, in such cases damage 
would be done; but one cannot well have a general law if 
it is intended that it should apply to one locality and not 
to another. The only remedy seems to be muchas exists 
in Canada, to have special localities protected with a notice 
under a new law saying that plants must not be dug up, 
and that if they are, then, that offenders will be prosecuted. 
Such localities, if public, could be protected either by 
selection by the County Council, or by parishes, or by 
magisterial districts, or, if private, landowners could apply 
to the same authorities for protection. However, it is 
desirable with regard to plants of this class also that they 
should come under the consideration of the county’s 
expert botanists. 
C. With regard to the third class of plants—the rarest 
species—which are liable to destruction by botanists, these 
might be protected in a few places by the same methods. 
However, it is noteworthy that not only in Gloucestershire 
but throughout England, as the secretary of the committee 
has been informed by Mr G. Claridge Druce, F.L.S., such 
plants have received all due regard at the hands of botan- 
ists. Several species, only known respectively each in 
