1098 



Besides the above, there were also the cultivated wheat, oat, bean 

 and potato. Some of the strangers occur in several other places down 

 the brook, for half a mile together, along with *Lithospermum arven- 

 se, *Festuca bromoides, Chrysanthemum segetum, Agrostemma Gi- 

 thago, &c. &c. 



Lane House, Luddenden, Saml. King. 



near Halifax, Sep. 13, 1844. 



Art. CCXL. — Notes on some Queries about the ' London Catalogue 

 of British Plants."" Communicated by G. E. Dennes, Esq., 

 Hon. Sec. Bot. Soc. London. 



In ' The Phytologist' for the current month (Phytol. 1077), a letter 

 appears from the pen of Mr. Grindon, in which many queries are pro- 

 posed to me, touching the reasons why certain names are used in the 

 London Catalogue, for species which are designated by other names 

 in the Edinburgh Catalogue, — why certain plants are entered as spe- 

 cies and others as varieties, — why some are marked indigenous and 

 others introduced ? In reply to the letter, I can only say that it is 

 manifestly impossible to answer such questions in detail, without 

 writing enough to fill whole Nos. of ' The Phytologist.' The many 

 pages written about the names and distinctions of GEnanthe pimpi- 

 nelloides, Carex paradoxa. Primula elatior, Hieracium sylvaticum, 

 and their respectively allied species or varieties, afford satisfactory 

 proofs that reasons for names and distinctions are rather too lengthy 

 affairs to be entered upon by scores at once. 



It has already been stated (Phytol. 1015) that, almost without ex- 

 ception, the names employed in the London Catalogue are adopted 

 from writers of authority ; and, in most instances, they are names 

 which have been very generally in use among botanical writers. Those 

 who require reasons for such names, ought to seek them in the pub- 

 lished works of the authors from whom they are taken. Those who 

 object to the names so sanctioned, ought to show reasons against 

 them, instead of idly calling for reasons why other parties have not 

 rejected them. 



Both Mr. Sidebotham and Mr. Grindon seem to have written under 

 a strange fancy, that the compilers of the London Catalogue were in 

 some way bound to have adopted exactly the same names as were 

 employed by the compilers of the Edinburgh Catalogue. But if the 

 names of this latter Catalogue had been implicitly adopted, other ob- 

 jectors would just as reasonably have asked, why a mere list of names 



