1078 



as it rejects the very means which the Edinburgh Catalogue tells us 

 is best calculated to promote it, namely, similarity of names ! By the 

 way, when dethroning the usurper, Carex irrigua, and restoring the 

 rightful appellation of glauca, why not carry out the principle, and 

 print humilis instead of clandestina ? A far more important feature 

 in the London Catalogue, is the change of rank forced upon certain 

 species and varieties. Mr. Dennes does not even touch upon this : 

 because the cases quoted by Mr. Sidebotham were " misapprehen- 

 sions " I presume. I may be falling into the same error myself, ne- 

 vertheless, I beg to enquire for information's sake, why Ranunculus 

 fluitans is only a variety, while circinatus is a species ? Why is Lo- 

 tus major a species, and hispidus a variety ? Why are Scirpus pun- 

 gens, Rumex aquaticus, Juncus difFusus and Prunus avium varieties 

 only ? Why is Senecio aquaticus only a variety of Jacobsea ? Why 

 is Scrophularia Ehrharti a var. of nodosa ? Why are Potamogeton 

 filiformis and zosteraceus varieties, if oblongus and plantagineus are 

 species ? Why separate Lamium album and maculatum, and combine 

 amplexicaule and intermedium, the two former being more nearly al- 

 lied than the two latter ? If Glyceria Borreri is to be referred to dis- 

 tans, why not both to maritima ? And lastly, if Carex irrigua is a 

 variety, why not also rariflora? Then again, we have several novelties 

 in genera, which it would be desirable to have explained. For in- 

 stance : — Why is Armoracia adopted, and not Erucastrum ? Why 

 Schoberia and not Halimus ? Why are Sinapis Monensis and S. 

 Cheiranthus placed in that genus, and not in Brassica, whilst nigra, 

 incana, muralis and tenuifolia are also there ? As to the distinction 

 of native and naturalized species, it appears to me that nothing could 

 be more straightforward that Mr. Sidebotham's enquiries. He did 

 not so much seek to ascertain the motive for including or excluding 

 certain species, as to elicit the principle or plan which had been fol- 

 lowed in estimating our Flora, as elsewhere in re-adjusting nomencla- 

 ture and relative rank. What is there in his letter that can be said 

 to justify or even to call for Mr. Dennes' ironical challenge ; espe- 

 cially when it so overflows with " misconceptions " ? May I ask why 

 Ononis reclinata is not, while Veronica Buxbaumii is, a true native ? 

 What difference is there between the claims of Fedia auricula and F. 

 carinata and dentata ? Why give Bupleurum falcatum, Salvia pra- 

 tensis and Achillea tomentosa as naturalized ? Has Narcissus Pseu- 

 do-narcissus any better right to be called wild than Galanthus ? It 

 would be easy to ask fifty more such questions with reference to the 

 London Catalogue. For the present I will leave it. Should we be 

 favoured with another vindicatory lettei', I do hope it will bear upon 



