693 



really so. The names of all are printed uniformly, and they are num- 

 bered consecutively ; as if all the names belonged to species which are 

 equally and certainly British. In these respects, the Catalogue is a 

 retrogression towards the inferior models, which were in use some 

 years ago, and which have been improved upon in the more recent 

 Floras and Catalogues. Mr. Ibbotson's work is, in truth, a very in- 

 correct list of British plants ; or rather, it is a list of species which 

 have been reported as British, rightly or falsely, without distinction. 



We could have wished to find these defects of the Catalogue, while 

 regarded as a list of species, compensated by some peculiar excel- 

 lence or usefulness in the compilation of the synonyms. For the 

 most part, however, they are copied wholesale from SteudeFs Nomen- 

 clator, without critical selection, apparently without verification, and 

 with very few of those additions and corrections from the works of 

 English authors, which might so reasonably have been expected in a 

 list of names exclusively restricted to the plants of this country. In 

 short, the lists of synonyms are rather plagiarisms from the Nomen- 

 clator of Steudel, than fair compilations; or, should that term appear 

 too harsh, let us say reprints from the Nomenclator. In the additions 

 made by Mr. Ibbotson himself, we fail to detect any regular plan or 

 rule of selection, which can account for the few additions and many 

 omissions. But two or three examples will best illustrate and esta- 

 blish the grounds of our censures and objections to this work. 



As the Catalogue issues from a provincial press, it may have been 

 slowly printed; and we will therefore not hold the author blameable 

 for the omission of Ranunculus Lenormandi, Cerastium strictum, or 

 other names which should have come in the earlier pages of the work. 

 But when we turn to the latter portion of part II. (only two parts 

 having yet reached us, and both being dated in 1846), and still find 

 errors and omissions which might have been avoided by ordinary care 

 in consulting standard or familiar works, we must think the Cata- 

 logue to be deserving of serious censure. 



In example of omissions which should certainly not have occurred 

 in any "carefully compiled" list of synonyms of British plants, for the 

 use of British botanists, we will refer to " Crepis virens, Lin^ of the 

 Catalogue. The native species, to which this name is applied, was 

 published under that of Hedypnoides tectorum in the ' Flora Anglica,' 

 and under that of Crepis tectorum in the 'Flora Britannica,' 'English 

 Botany,' 'English Flora,' &c. Nevertheless we do not find the Hedyp- 

 nois tectorum or Crepis tectorum, of any British author, given among 

 the synonyms of C virens. A dozen other synonyms are given ; but 

 Vol. II. 4 s 



