643 



the ' British Flora ' is neither calculated to extend the fame of its au- 

 thor, nor in any considerable degree to raise the standard of botanical 

 excellence in this country ; it even, in many points, falls short of the 

 actual state of knowledge of our native plants, existing in Britain at 

 the period of its publication. 



We believe that the numerous avocations of the author have been 

 urged, even by his reviewers, in extenuation of sundry little blemish- 

 es, which those fond of such employment might hunt out in the for- 

 mer editions of the ' British Flora.' Such a plea, to a certain extent, 

 we are quite willing to admit ; at the same time we contend, that in 

 the preparation of a new edition of a popular and really useful work, 

 the public, who have so warmly patronized the earlier editions, have 

 a right to expect that a little more care should be taken than appears 

 to have been bestowed on this same fifth edition of the ' British Flora,' 

 and certainly a little more regard for the researches of fellow-labour- 

 ers would not have been altogether out of place. For instance ; — if, 

 instead of simply quoting the Edinburgh Catalogue as a mere list of 

 synonyms, not worth the trouble of investigating. Sir William had 

 been led by his doubts to a re-examination of the works of the conti- 

 nental authors whose nomenclature is there adopted, and had then 

 thought it necessary to reject that nomenclature, — his reasons for do- 

 ing so would have been heard with deference and respect. Again ; 

 as one example of Sir William's disregard of the labours of British 

 botanists, may be mentioned the long-mooted question respecting the 

 parasitism of Monotropa ; which, in the period between the publica- 

 tion of the fourth and fifth editions of the ' British Flora,' was fully 

 investigated and satisfactorily decided ; yet we here find repeated the 

 same words — " Root fibrous, parasitic ?" — which have appeared in all 

 the former editions of that work. Nor is any allusion made to another 

 form of Monotropa, now found to be common in England, and appa- 

 rently so distinct from Hypopitys, as to have been raised to the rank 

 of a species by many botanists. A little more care would also have 

 led to the detection and correction of numerous erroneous references to 

 * English Botany,' which have been perpetuated from first to last : like 

 the old nomenclature for the fems and their allies, which is retained 

 with scarcely a single change. The book is, in fact, little more than 

 the fourth edition newly arranged, that is, the natural system is fol- 

 lowed instead of the Linnaean in the body of the work, with a Lin- 

 nsean synopsis of genera prefixed : the preface even has not been re- 

 written in justification of this change of plan ; a few sentences having 

 been grafted on the old stock in reference to the use of the Linnsean 



