1026 



while, so far as nomenclature and characters were concerned, the work 

 remained almost in statu quo. 



In the Edinburgh Catalogue, when the name of a genus or species 

 was changed, the compilers paid the author of the ' British Flora ' 

 the compliment of giving a reference to the name under which it ap- 

 peared in the fourth edition of that work. In a mere Catalogue of 

 names no more than this could be looked for. But, in a standard 

 work like the ' British Flora,' if the author saw reason not to adopt 

 the changes proposed in the Edinburgh Catalogue, we have always 

 held the opinion, and in this we are not alone, that if he thought fit 

 to notice the Catalogue at all, he was bound to pay the compilers a 

 higher compliment than the somewhat equivocal one of merely deem- 

 ing it " entitled to quotation among the synonyms," and that, too, 

 simply on the ground of especial pains appearing to have been taken 

 to render it a complete list of British plants. The compilers of the 

 Catalogue, having endeavoured to place the nomenclature of British 

 plants on a sounder basis than before, we consider that the least that 

 could have been expected, if their changes were not adopted, was that 

 the reasons for their rejection should have been stated; and such rea- 

 sons, coming from the author of the ' British Flora,' would have been 

 received with all the deference and respect to which, emanating from 

 such a quarter, they were fairly entitled. The rejection of these pro- 

 posed changes without such reasons being adduced, has been the on- 

 ly ground for censure on this subject, which may at any time have 

 been expressed in our pages. 



But, it may be asked, what has all this to do with the question at 

 issue between the editor of the ' London Journal of Botany ' and the 

 reviewer of Newman's ' History of British Ferns.' ? We answer, — 

 Much every way ! — inasmuch as among the rejected changes in no- 

 menclature were several relating to British ferns, which, having pre- 

 viously been proposed and introduced by Mr. Newman, were thought 

 worthy of adoption by the compilers of the Edinburgh Catalogue. 

 We advisedly say, introduced by Mr. Newman — not invented; for 

 nowhere in his ' History of British Ferns,' does he claim for himself 

 the merit of having invented a single name. And in blaming the 

 reviewer for claiming for Mr. Newman the merit of having originated 

 or invented " a nomenclature," we cannot help thinking that the 

 editor has been fighting with a shadow of his own raising. 



We now pass on to the editor's declaration, that he is not aware of 

 having in any way acted unfairly by Mr. Newman. Previously, per- 

 haps not ; but in the foot-note above quoted, and in one paragraph 



