74 Bibliographical Notice. 



The cause of this is mentioned in the introductory remarks — namely, 

 that the author has become a resident in Bengal. We may add that 

 he is a fellow of Queen's College at Cambridge, and has now charge 

 of a large educational institution in India. He had occupied him- 

 self for several years before leaving England in the examination of 

 the flora of Andover during such parts of the summer as he could be 

 there, and has done well to print the results of his researches. He 

 justly remarks that "a list of this kind can never be complete," and 

 he therefore less regrets the incompleteness of the present. It is a 

 valuable contribution to a knowledge of the distribution of our native 

 plants. The author is a man of great ability and much originality : 

 he has therefore occasionally made remarks which may not be quite 

 palatable to some other botanists. They always well deserve atten- 

 tion, although we are sometimes far from altogether agreeing with 

 the author. We would especially direct attention to the observations 

 upon "geographical distribution," on pages 10-14. They deserve 

 the notice of all who occupy themselves with that interesting study. 



Under Rubus is the remark : — " I admit that universal botanists 

 are not bound to get up the Rubi; but if they only describe R. fru- 

 ticosus and R. ccesius, they should define those ' species ' so as to 

 collect the allied forms as well as possible ; and they must not sup- 

 pose that by making two species only they avoid all difficulty. So 

 far is that from being the case, that it is as difficult at the least to 

 separate the Ccesii and Fruticosi as it is to separate R. lencostachys 

 from R. discolor. For instance, Dr. Bromfield, a skilful rubologist, 

 considered R.corylifolius to belong to the Fruticosi, laying stress on 

 its fruit ; whilst most other rubologists consider it to be one of the 

 Ccesii. If, therefore, rubologists are not always able to separate ab- 

 solutely their 'species,' they are not therefore to be taunted as 

 triflers by those who define their two species R. fruticosus and R. 

 ccesius in such a way that, in the case of great masses of Rubi, no- 

 body can decide under which section they are to be placed." 



But we must proceed, after simply adding that the List records 

 the localities and frequency of G%7 species of flowering plants and 

 ferns — not a bad catalogue for a small district of less than ten miles' 

 radius. 



The * Flora of Devon and Cornwall ' is the first instalment of a 

 complete flora of these interesting counties. Such a flora is very 

 much wanted, as we possess no satisfactory account of the plants of 

 the south-west of England. Mr. Keys is well qualified for the work 

 that he has undertaken ; and we hope that he will be able to proceed 

 successfully and quickly with it. 



He makes only two "districts," namely the counties of Devon 

 and Cornwall. We think that it would have been well, considering 

 how much the different parts of these counties differ from each 

 other, if he had followed the example of most of the modern local 

 floras, and divided each of the counties into several local districts. 

 The work which he has undertaken seems to be performed well and 

 carefully. 



Mr. Jenyns's Lecture is intended to show what has been done in 



