1047 



prized to learn that this remarkable plant was known in only one 

 county of Britain up to the year 1850. In the ' Cybele Britannica,' 

 1849, localities in seven counties are reported, with reference to their 

 authorities, but two of them are suspected. Mr. Woods may here 

 plead that the discoveries are quite recent, and that the writer of 

 a general work must almost inevitably be a little behind the know- 

 ledge of the day or year of his publication. Such a plea would in 

 general be a valid exoneration for overlooking things of recent record. 

 But the instance of the Anacharis or Udora is too remarkable and ex- 

 ceptional for the plea to be allowed. If an Author is carelessly inac- 

 curate in stating the habitat of this plant, what may we expect in the 

 case of other plants less likely to command attention and accuracy ? 

 Just what we have cited in the Lastraea and Scheuchzeria above men- 

 tioned, and just what we could show in so many other instances. 



With regard to the admission of some species, and exclusion of 

 other species, presumed to be of exotic origin, and only naturalized 

 within the area of his Flora, the Author may be held at liberty to fol- 

 low his own judgment or caprice. But some of the omissions, in con- 

 trast with the admissions, strike us as belonging rather to the category 

 of caprice than to that of judgment. Thus, to admit the Canna In- 

 dica, and exclude the Sisyrinchium anceps, seems a somewhat strange 

 preference. 



The same license and same comment may likewise be extended to 

 the very debateable ground of species or variety. And as an instance 

 of capricious separation, we may refer to the severance of Festuca 

 pratensis and F. loliacea, as two distinct species, although a root of 

 the latter absolutely can and does assume the characters of the former 

 under cultivation, and the gradual transition from one to the other 

 can be so easily traced in meadows where both occur. On the other 

 hand, strange to say, after all that has been written about " Primula 

 elatior," in England, and the correct manner in which P. veris, 

 elatior, and vulgaris are entered in ' Babington's Manual,' and other 

 works, we find the Author of 'The Tourist's Flora' still confusing to- 

 gether the P. elatior of Jacquin, and the umbellate variety of P. 

 vulgaris. 



Indiscriminate eulogy in the notice of a new publication likely to 

 excite attention, is a fraud upon his readers by the reviewer. And 

 censure without citing examples of what is faulty, is unfair to the 

 Author. We have endeavoured to avoid both these objectionable 

 modes of noticing books, at present too much in vogue. ' The 

 Tourist's Flora' is a good and serviceable addition to our botanical 



