CORRESPONDENCE. 217 
measure due to botanists not attaching the same idea to the word ‘indigenous,’ 
and I have also found it useless to determine by authority whether a plant is 
to be considered indigenous or not for the same reason. I was of course com- 
pelled to mark plants as indigenous or introduced in the Andover district by 
my own guesses, and I thought it much better to tell my readers from what 
premises I made the guess. I accordingly defined—* By an indigenous plant 
I mean a plant which I should expect to meet with if I were transported back- 
wards to the period immediately before agriculture was commenced.” This 
definition is held up by H. C. W. as the most flagrant instance of my egotism, 
and occurs steadily through the ‘ Andover List,’ because, firstly, writing in the 
first person is shorter and more distinct than writing in the third, and because, 
the usefulness of a list such as the ‘ Andover List,’ which must depend upon 
its accuracy and especially on the exclusion of species mistakenly named, I 
am sorry that H. C. W. has not employed more of his space in criticizing the 
list itself. as I should without doubt gain much by his hints for my second 
edition. To take H. C. W.’s remarks in detailed order :— 
Ophrys apifera does grow in the district, viz. in the church meadow at 
Hurstborne Priors, also near the bridge in Hurstborne Park. These localities 
were sent me within a short time after the printing of the ‘Andover List,’ 
by C. Lockhart, Esq., who also at the same time sent me much other informa- 
tion. I mention this to encourage others to publish local Floras or anything 
in Mr. Lockhart's parish, and 
yet never suspected that I had a brother botanist within twenty miles till I 
It appears thus that H. C. W. is right in his suspicions that these plants 
grow in the district and have escaped me. I have intimated in the introduc- 
tion to my list, and indeed in my very title, that such would be found to be the 
case 
Mimulus luteus I have no doubt is introduced in Hampshire. The word 
‘introduced’ is omitted after it by mistake, as H. C. W. suggests. I had 
written and re-written a note on it, but as it did not concern Mimulus luteus 
as a Hampshire plant, I finally cut it out and forgot to insert ‘introduced.’ 
I saw some years ago on the side of Loch Scavaig, in Skye, banks of Mimulus 
luteus, such that with a scythe and pitchfork one might have speedily loaded a 
cart therewith. The improbability of its being a mere escape in so desert a 
