151 



very judiciously recommends the adoption of that Catalogue as a general standard of 

 nomenclature ; and with that recommendation I would most cordially concur, not- 

 withstanding an opinion that some of the names will be again changed in a third edi- 

 tion. But the reviewer extends his recommendation farther than this, by suggesting 

 the expediency of botanists adopting the alphabetical arrangement in publishing local 

 lists of plants ; and it is against this latter part of the recommendation that I would 

 offer my single protest ; knowing well, from long and frequent experience, the extreme 

 inconvenience of consulting such alphabetical lists. It is absolutely necessary for dis- 

 tributing societies to have a fixed series of names, to facilitate the tedious processes of 

 sorting their specimens, and of supplying the desiderata-lists of applicants; and the 

 alphabetical order certainly offers many advantages for this special purpose. It is 

 much otherwise when the general objects of science are concerned, and individual stu- 

 dents or writers require to consult numerous books and lists of plants, published at 

 different periods, or in different countries. Uniformity of names is out of the ques- 

 tion under these circumstances ; and any arrangement by which similar plants are 

 brought together becomes better than an alphabetical one, in which similar names 

 only can be brought together, and where a difference of name of course destroys the 

 regularity of the series. I am now engaged in preparing for the press a somewhat vo- 

 luminous work on the distribution and localities of the plants of Britain, and have 

 found it so very inconvenient to make references to alphabetical catalogues, or even to 

 consult them, as to have felt strongly disposed to draw a line of distinction between 

 the alphabetical and arranged lists ; rejecting the former as unsuitable for the purpo- 

 ses of science. I find that with one, or at most two exceptions, this line of distinction 

 would throw out only the inaccurate lists of inexperienced and incompetent botanists; 

 but as it would be wounding the feelings of others without any necessity for doing so, 

 did I give examples of this, it is better to refrain. Those who have had half as fre- 

 quent occasions as I have had, to consult lists of plants published in this country, will 

 easily supply examples from their own recollections. The internal evidence afforded 

 by the Catalogue reviewed, clearly indicates the individual author of the altered no- 

 menclature ; and we do not find him publishing local lists alphabetically, when the 

 general purposes of botanical science are in view, though he has printed some highly 

 interesting and valuable lists of that class. — Hcivett C. Watson ; Thumes Ditton, Ja- 

 nuary 5, 1842. 



109. Additions to the Flora of Moray. Mr. Stables (Phytol. 132) records an inte- 

 resting addition to the published Catalogue of Moray plants. Perhaps it may be 

 worth while to add two other species observed by myself within the same district last 

 summer, as the non-mention of any plant in a local Flora is a sort of negative evidence 

 against its existence in the tract. The two species are Allosorus ciispus and Carex 

 saxatilis; the former growing in plenty on a stone wall near the toll-bar at Dalwhin- 

 nie ; the latter in a mountain corri, about five miles eastward of the same place, and 

 at an elevation rather exceeding 2,500 feet. — Id. 



110. Erratum. Phytol. 133, line 26, for 1779, read 1799. 



Aet. L. — Proceedings of Societies. 



BOTANICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. 

 January 7. John Edward Gray, Esq. F.R.S., President, in the Chair. The following donations were 

 announced. British Plants from Dr. Streeten, Dr. Young, The Rev. Gerard E. Smith, Miss S. Foster, Mr. 

 Gutch, Mr. Edwin Lees and Miss E. Harvey. Mr. W. A. Leighton presented specimens of Tragopogon mi- 

 nor (Fries), found in Shropshire. Mr. James Ward presented specimens of Le.canora rubra and Ribcs spi- 



