1 74 , Bibliographical Notices. 



might present a complete view of the contents of that great work ; 

 but he certainly should not have omitted the last supplementary 

 volume. 



In a work of such humble pretensions and at the same time so 

 useful as the present, we do not wish to be hypercritical ; but it is 

 necessary to notice a few instances in which the figures are incorrect, 

 either through blindly copying an originally erroneous plate, or from 

 accidental changes made by the artist. 



219. Cerastium semidecandrum does not represent any known 

 plant : the diaphanous part of the bracts (characteristic of the species), 

 which is badly represented in the original plate, is totally omitted 

 here. 



24 1 . Hypericum Androseemum is duly copied from the ' English 

 Botany,' but is now universally admitted not to represent the true 

 plant. 



444. Epilobium alsinifolium. We have learned from the original 

 drawings and notes that Eng. Bot. t. 2000 is formed of the flowers 

 of E. montanum (copied into the 'Wild Flowers') and the base of 

 the stem of E. obscurum. E. alsinifolium is therefore not repre- 

 sented in 'English Botany' nor in 'Wild Flowers.' 



537. CEnanthe pimpinelloides is not the true plant, but is CE. 

 Lachenalii. The real CE. pimpinelloides is not figured in ' English 

 Botany.' 



613. Valeriana dioica, and 614. V. officinalis. This is a good 

 example of the uselessness of scraps, either as specimens or figures. 

 No person unacquainted with these very different plants could di- 

 stinguish them by these figures, which nevertheless are carefully 

 copied from parts of the original plates. 



1215. Anacharis Alsinastrum. This sketch is taken from the 

 good plate in the 'Annals of Natural History,' but the parts are 

 badly selected. A flower with three styles should have been given, 

 and the long tube represented. 



1244. Neottia gemmipara. The drawing has been taken from the 

 bad plate in the ' Supplement to English Botany,' instead of the 

 beautiful figure in the ' Linneean Transactions ' (xix. t. 32). 



We have already mentioned one drawing of a plant not included 

 in the ' English Botany ;' and there seems to be only one other, viz. 

 13. Ranunculus pantothrix. It is quite impossible to say what 

 plant this is intended to represent ; for no Water-Ranunculus ever 

 had such leaves as are there depicted. We suspect, judging from 

 the flower, that it may have been taken from a specimen of R. 

 Drouetii. 



It will be seen from the few remarks that we have felt it necessary 

 to make that the great bulk of the 1600 figures are good ; many of 

 them are excellent. 



We strongly recommend the book to our readers. Figures of 

 1600 plants for £3, or more than 26 for a shilling, cannot be con- 

 sidered otherwise than exceedingly cheap. 



