gE ID 
a a eT Ee 
eo P 
WHAT IS THE THAMES-SIDE BRASSICA ? 847 
established im Britain, and which has never been found in Surrey by 
me, although a resident for thirty years and upwards. 
In the original * Botanist's Guide’ of 1805 Mr. Borrer wrote of the 
plant thus :—“ Brassica Napus? What appears a remarkable va- 
riety of this species, with erect siliquee and bristly leafstalks, grows 
about the Thames at Hampton and Kew.” Thirty years later, in the 
‘New Botauist's Guide,’ we find the plant reported by Mr. Winch 
under a different name, thus :—‘ Brassica campestris. By the Thames, 
near Hampton, abundantly, 1829." In the Supplement to the latter 
work, dated 1837, the same plant was reported on my own observa- 
tion thus :— Brassica campestris. A plant presumed to be this 
species, grows in plenty on the sides of the Thames for several miles, 
both above and below Ditton.” This description would include the 
locality of “ Hampton,” previously recorded by the two older botanists 
named. I turn now to records of recent date. 
‘The ‘ Flora of Surrey’ is dated in 1863 ; being a posthumous work, 
edited from materials left by Mr. J. D. Salmon, and saved to science 
through the judicious liberality of Mr. W. W. Saunders. Doubtless 
the editor would feel unwilling to alter the notes of localities which 
had been collected by Mr. Salmon, unless on the clearest evidence of 
errors. Hence, probably, the confusing inconsistency in the Flora 
named, where this one Thames-side Brassica comes twice, as if two 
different species, and under two different specific names. It is there 
entered secondly as Napus, on the authority of Mr. J. T. Syme and 
Mr. J. S. Mill, having been also given firstly as campestris from my 
own notes to the editor. 
In 1869 we have the ‘ Flora of Middlesex,’ by Trimen and Dyer, a 
work highly creditable to its authors. Unfortunately, in their attempt 
to set us right about this plant, they have adopted the error and re- 
jected the truth. They treat the species as certainly Napus; correct 
the supposed blunder of Winch in calling it campestris ; ignore my own 
record of this latter plant in the Supplement above quoted; and 
declare that they have not observed B. campestris in Middlesex. 
As the plan of their Flora does not include descriptions, but gives only 
the names of species, and as its authors state no reason for their own 
reference of the plant in question to Napus instead of campestris, we 
must seek elsewhere for a test of their correctness or otherwise in thus 
deciding. 
2*4 
