1018 



lishecl by that author, as I think, after the ' British Flora ' was out. 

 Though I do not know upon what authority the reviewer {loc. cit.) 

 has "fathered" the London Catalogue upon my "pen," it would now 

 he useless to disavow any connexion between them. — Heivett C. 

 Watson ; Thames Ditton, May 28, 1844. 



494. BenlalVs Drying-paper. I have tried the new paper manu- 

 factured by Messrs. Bentall of Halstead, for drying plants, by placing 

 specimens of several kinds into it, and not again examining them un- 

 til they became dry, and find that it is well deserving of commenda- 

 tion. The colours of the flowers and leaves are well preserved. I 

 placed eight thicknesses of paper between each layer of specimens. 

 This paper is fully as good as, if not better than, the "chalk-paper^'' 

 employed here, which is so much esteemed as to have been sent to 

 distant parts of the kingdom, and even to S. America and Australia. 

 — Charles C. Babington ; St. John\<i College, Cambridge, June 1, 

 1844. 



495. Note on Primula elatior. I must request permission to enter 

 a strong protest against Mr. Newman's endeavour (Phytol. 996) to 

 give a new name to this plant ; not from any objection to paying the 

 honour due to Jacquin for discriminating a true species amongst these 

 variable plants ; but in order to prevent the addition of an unneces- 

 sary synonym, and also because Jacquin is undoubtedly the first bo- 

 tanist in modern times (that is since the time of Linnasus) who distin- 

 guished the plant specifically, and had therefore a right to give it a 

 name. The P. veris i3. elatior (Linn.) may have been intended to in- 

 clude Jacquin's plant, as well as the umbellate plants which connect 

 the cowslip and primrose ; but as Linnaeus only employed the name 

 to designate a variety, there was nothing to prevent Jacquin from giv- 

 ing it to a species. The question is not affected by Jacquin's belief 

 or otherwise in the identity of his species and the Linnsean variety, 

 for that is only an error in determining a synonym. The confusion 

 of which Mr. Newman justly complains, is not caused by the name 

 of elatior being used specifically ; but by many British botanists ap- 

 plying it to the " spurious oxlips " so often found in this country, and 

 fancying that they are the species thus named. It therefore becomes 

 necessary to call it " Jacquin's oxlip," or that of " Bardfield," until 

 English botanists learn to distinguish the true plant from the spurious 

 one. I trust to hear no more of P. Jacqiiinii, Newman. It may be 

 as well to add that Professor Henslow finds the P. elatior [Jacq.) in 

 his parish of Hitcham, in Suffolk, from whence I possess specimens, 

 by his kindness. — Id. 



