974 



vallaria bifolia, Cypripedium Calceolus, Cyclamen hederilbliuni, &c. 

 should have been expelled to the cover. If such a plan is persevered 

 in, we shall never know what to consider as our really native though 

 very rare plants. — Joseph Sidehotham ; Manchester, April 19, 1844. 



[We gladly give insertion to the above remarks of Mr. Sidehotham, not because 

 they are strictures on the extensive changes in nomenclature introduced into the Cata- 

 logue of the London Botanical Society, but because they refer to a subject of vital 

 importance to the science of Botany. Every botanist must see how greatly to be de- 

 sired is a uniform nomenclature ; and to this desirable end should the efforts of all 

 cultivators of the science be strenuously and unanimously directed. But this object 

 can never be attained so long as those who ought to be considered authorities follow 

 each their own path. Some of the changes complained of by Mr. Sidehotham, did not, 

 however, originate with the London Botanical Society ; their adoption of some of these 

 changes we entirely approve of, nor can we help wishing that in some things they had 

 gone a little further. For instance, the substitution of Equisetum Telmateia for flu- 

 viatile was proposed by Mr. Newman in our own pages (Phytol. 721), and this change 

 has been adopted by the compilers of the London Catalogue; but why did they not 

 restore the rejected name fluviatile to what we consider its legitimate position, as the 

 appellation of the species still standing in the list as E. limosum ? Carex glauca agaiu 

 is merely a restoration of a prior name to the plant named recurva by Hudson, and is 

 adopted from Mr. Babington's Manual. Restorations of this nature, where the right 

 of priority can be determined and is adhered to, we can never quarrel with. The com- 

 pilers of the Edinburgh Catalogue thought it necessary to explain certain changes in- 

 troduced into their list; perhaps the compilers of the London Catalogue may think it 

 rio'ht to adopt the same course : if so,, we shall be happy to admit their explanations 

 into our pages. We shall also be glad to receive communications from our correspon- 

 dents on the subject of nomenclature. By the way, we may take this opportunity of 

 observing that we are convinced there is still room for a catalogue of British plants, 

 with all their synonymes from the time of LinuEeus, on the plan of Steudel's excellent 

 'Nomenclator,' which indeed should form the basis of the new British catalogue : 

 this, if properly executed, would be a boon to our working botanists. — Ed.'\ 



479. Note on Primula elatior. On the 17th instant I accompanied 

 Mr. Borrer to Great Bardfield, Essex, to gather the true Primula ela- 

 tior, where it was found by Mr. Henry Doubleday, (Phytol. 204). — 

 On our way from the railway-station, Mr. Borrer fortunately espied it 

 in a wet hilly pasture on the left of the road from Bishop's Stortford 

 to Takeley, between the two- mile-stone and Thremhale Priory. We 

 alighted of course, and entering the field, we observed it in greater 

 abundance than in the meadow near the bridge over the Pant at Great 

 Bardfield, although not quite so luxuriant. This plant has been fre- 

 quently overlooked or confounded with Primula vulgaris, /3. {Smith), 

 Mr. Babington's /3. umhsllata, which is beautifully figured in Hook- 

 er s continuation of Curtis's ' Flora Londinensis ' under the name of 

 Primula elatior. Sir J. E. Smith was evidently acquainted with both, 



