1015 



native and naturalised species. Impatiens fulva was originally intro- 

 duced to this country from America, as any botanist would have 

 informed Mr. Sidebotham. 



All will concur with the editorial wishes for uniformity of nomencla- 

 clature, so far as it can now be obtained. The names in works alrea- 

 dy printed cannot be changed; and just so far as new works introduce 

 new names, so far is the departure from unifomiity increased. The 

 sparing adoption of newly invented names, is a characteristic feature 

 of the London Catalogue ; and there is only one instance, in the 

 whole Catalogue, of a change in the name of a species, to wit, Glyce- 

 ria loliacea, which shall presently be accounted for. In every other 

 instance, (one or two errors of the press or pen excepted), the autho- 

 rity is given for the species, which shows the name to be one previ- 

 ously in use. The London Society, thus, cannot truly be accused of 

 making extensive changes in nomenclature. All that was done, con- 

 sisted in the selection of one from among the various names already 

 applied to the same species by different authors. Individual bota- 

 nists may think that they could have made a better selection of names ; 

 but this is a matter of individual opinion or self-complacency. 



In selecting the names, the leading rule was that of taking the best 

 known name , although, in several instances, this rule was allowed to 

 yield to other considerations. Thus, it was a question whether pre- 

 ference should be given to Carex recurva, as the name best known to 

 English botanists, or to Carex glauca, as the name best known to the 

 botanical world in general ; and the latter was adopted, because pri- 

 ority was in its favour, and not much confusion was likely to arise 

 from its use. On the other hand, while Carex Goodenovii was cor- 

 rectly substituted for Carex ca3spitosa, this latter name was not sub- 

 stituted for that of Carex stricta ; because, to take a familiar name 

 from one species, and then give the same name to a different species, 

 seemed the most certain mode of causing error and confusion. A si- 

 milar reason operated againsj, the name of Equisetum fluviatile ; al- 

 though, it is allowed, that Mr. Newman was correct (according to 

 strict rule) in making this transfer of the name from one species to 

 another. But the rule of priority is valuable only in its tendency to 

 prevent confusion, and where strict adherence to it would increase 

 confusion, there seemed sufficient reason for the departure from it. 



Glyceria loliacea is a troublesome sort of plant, which comes near 

 Triticum in technical character, while it agrees better with a section 

 of the Linnasan genus Poa, in general habit. In Steudel's Nomen- 

 clator nine different names are recorded for it, and others could be 



