216 CORRESPONDENCE. 
that H. C. W. states generally that my own alleged facts (sometimes) directly 
contradict my most emphatic assertions, but gives no instances unless the pre- 
sent and another equally trivial one concerning the determination of a doubtful 
specimen marked Lastrea cristata ? are to be considered as such. 
my list of Andover plants to Babington’s text book, or, as it should have 
been quoted, to Babington’s among other text books. My reasons for adapting 
the list to a text book are stated separately, and are distinct. H.C. W. re- 
marks that “differences might be just as well known and much better an- 
nounced without making bad species founded thereon.” To which there is 
I have merely remarked that an observer may call attention to a very important 
fact, though at the same time he makes a very bad species. H. C. W.’s next 
ph is directed against “repetitions of matter sufficiently well known,” 
from which a hasty reader might infer that he brings that charge against me. 
But it is not at all clear that he does. H. C. W. several times employs the 
artifice of defeating arguments which I have not advanced, and at the same 
time avoids committing himself to any direct expression of opinion in opposi- 
tion to mine. He is severe on my definition of ‘indigenous,’ but he suggests 
no better; he says my theory, that the fertile fronds in Lastrea Oreopteris, etc., 
do not exhibit the full development of the pinnules, is opposed to received 
notions, and scoffs at it a little, but he does not say that he thinks it wrong 
after all. 
The next part (a large one) of H. C. W.’s criticism is occupied with an ex- 
planation of the method adopted in the ‘ Cybele Britannica,’ and a vindication 
of its accuracy. I have nothing to object to this. In the ‘Andover List : 
I have described the * Cybele Britannica’ as “ the most elaborate and carefully 
prepared abstract of geographical distribution extant, founded on unusually 
numerous observations, and corrected by great local experience on the part of 
the compiler... .” This, perhaps, might have been expected to satisfy H. C. 
But I committed the grave crime of reducing my list by the standard of 
Babington's ‘Handbook’ instead of by the ‘London Catalogue. The ques- 
tion before me was “ whether the advantage proposed to be gained by the re- 
ference of alllocal British Floras to the * London Catalogue' would counter- 
balance the advantages of reference to a manual" This is the real issue be- 
tween H. C. W. and myself, which he avoids by summarily declaring my 
arguments on that point to be wholly irrelevant. This any person who 
wishes to take the trouble of reading the introduction to the * Andover List d 
can judge for himself, but I may be permitted to state that one or two persons 
almost as well qualified to judge as H. C. W. have not thought them irrelevant. 
The next point in H. C. W ism is very extraordinary to me. The de- 
finition of the word ‘indigenous’ is generally avoided by cautious old botanists. 
In books there appears a great difference of opinion between botanists of emi- 
nence in the case of many plants, whether they are to be considered indigenous 
orno. It has seemed to me that these apparent differences are in a great 
