877 



supposed that he does, and desires them to be recognized as some- 

 thing better than mere names in books, he would materially promote 

 this latter object by depositing a good series of specimens in London, 

 either in the herbarium of the Botanical Society, or in that of the 

 Linnaean Society. Though a Scottish capital, Edinburgh is only a 

 British provincial town, and cannot be the same available centre for 

 science as the real metropolis of the kingdom. 



It has already been intimated that Newman's three species of Las- 

 traea, — spinosa, multiflora, recurva, — are adopted in the second edi- 

 tion of the Manual, although none of these names are used for them. 

 The choice between these and the other names retained in their 

 stead, may perhaps be considered optional. It is remarkable, how- 

 ever, that in adopting Lowe's specific name of Fceuisecii, for L. 

 recurva, the author of the Manual should so put the matter as to vir- 

 tually say that his book is the first instance of the name Lastrgea 

 Fceuisecii being applied to the species. Now, Mr. Newman was the 

 first botanist to announce the identity of his L. recurva and Lowe's 

 Nephrodium Fosnisecii (Phytol. ii. 509). But in consequence of Mr. 

 Newman having declined to take up the specific name from Lowe, 

 in preference to his adopted name from Bree, Mr. H. C. Watson sub- 

 sequently did so, on the ground that established usage required this 

 course (Phytol. ii. 568). The word is spelt incorrectly ("foenesecii") 

 in Mr. Watson's printed paper; but an error of that kind cannot alter 

 the facts of the case. The author of the Manual had the choice be- 

 tween two names, according to ordinary usage and courtesy among 

 botanists, that is, between Lastraea recurva {Newm.) and Lastraea foe- 

 nisecii {Wats.). He steers clear of the choice by writing " L. Foeni- 

 secii; frond triangular,^'' &c., which is exactly equivalent to inform- 

 ing all readers of the Manual, that the author of that book is the first 

 botanist who applies the name " L. Fceuisecii " to that species ! An 

 omission in this case, and an omission above mentioned in the genus 

 Erica, may perchance mutually explain each other. It is with no 

 little regret that we feel justified in hinting this solution ; while, of 

 course, admitting that its accuracy cannot be proved. 



Notwithstanding some petty blemishes in the Manual, it is an ex- 

 cellent book on the whole, and we shall rejoice to see other successive 

 editions in demand. 



C. 



Vol. II. 5 r 



