branched; — varieties which pass insensibly one into the other. But 

 nevertheless a sort of contradiction of his own view is given by the 

 same author in the prefixed Synopsis (p. 7). And there are other and 

 stronger reasons for avoiding the change at present, in addition to 

 Mr. Newman's own state of doubt about the plants. 



In a more recent publication on British plants, the second edition 

 of Babington's Manual, we find a different application of the name 

 "fluviatile" (of "Linneus"); where it is used for a plant distinguished 

 from the Equisetura limosum (of " Linneus ") by other characters than 

 the presence of branches. And the author of the Manual mentions 

 the plant so distinguished, and so named, as one that is only reported 

 to be native. Apparently he had seen no British specimen. Neither 

 had Mr. Dennes or I seen any examples of it. According to Fries 

 the true Eq. fluviatile [Linn.) and Eq. limosum {Linn.) are two rea- 

 dily distinguished species, although usually deemed varieties of one. 

 And it is these two alleged different plants which are intended by 

 those names in the second edition of Babington's Manual, and in the 

 second edition of the ' London Catalogue.' 



After this explanation, I trust it will appear that the reviewer was 

 right in saying that Eqnisetum fluviatile was "not unadvisedly" 

 placed among the " Excluded Species " of the ' London Catalogue.' 

 It is there entered in the following manner, which is important to the 

 defence or explanation : — 



'fluviatile,"/.." ?' 



The use of inverted commas (" Z».") was of course intended to show 

 that we gave the name on some authority, and not as an ascertained 

 fact to which we could ourselves certify. And the addition of the 

 note of interrogation (the use of which, when so applied, is explained 

 in the Catalogue) signified that the species is one "not clearly ascer- 

 tained to occur in the British Islands." With respect to authority 

 for the name, we have the very high one of Fries, endorsed (as the 

 Americans say) by Babington. And with respect to the nativity of 

 the plant in Britain, we were surely entitled and called upon to place 

 among the doubtfuls any alleged species of Equisetum which was ap- 

 parently unnoticed by Newman in 1844; which, in 1847, Babington 

 vaguely mentions only as one reported to be native ; and of which 

 neither of us, the editors of the Catalogue, had seen an example. If, 

 as stated by Fries, Eq. limosum and Eq. fluviatile, both of Linneus, 

 are two distinct species, it must still remain to be ascertained satis- 



