1099 



was followed, in preference to the best descriptive works on British 

 Botany, such as those of Smith, Hooker, or Babington ? Not only- 

 do the Floras of Smith and Hooker (the highest authorities who have 

 written Floras of Britain) differ from the Edinburgh Catalogue in ma- 

 ny names, — but even, in several instances, the names of the Edin- 

 burgh Catalogue are again changed and made different in Mr. Babing- 

 ton's ' Manual of British Botany.' When we thus find the same au- 

 thor using one set of names in 1841 (Edinb. Cat), and other names in 

 1843 (Manual), there can be no great ground for surprize or censure 

 in the circumstance of two different Societies being still less uniform 

 in their nomenclature. 



Mutatis mutandis, similar observations may be extended to the 

 distinctions between species and vai'ieties, between native and natu- 

 ralized plants. In very many instances they can be only the opinions 

 of individuals, drawn from imperfect evidence. It is mere mis-use of 

 terms to represent Mr. Sidebotham as endeavouring to " elicit the 

 principle or plan " which was followed in distinguishing native and 

 naturalized plants. There could be no " principle " — that is, general 

 rule : each case must be decided by itself, on the best attainable evi- 

 dence. One species (say, for example, Impatiens fulva) is excluded 

 because known to have been introduced from a distant country ; ano- 

 ther (Corydalis lutea) because its localities are all near houses, or in 

 spots to which the plant is likely to have been carried by the hand of 

 man ; another (Linura usitatissimum) as being a species long in ordi- 

 nary cultivation, and not permanent in its localities. Thus, there is 

 no common test applicable — no general rule — no " principle " to be 

 followed. Indeed, it was one of Mr. Sidebotham's own errors to as- 

 sume (not ask for) a principle, when he stated the number of local 

 Floras as the test between native and naturalized species. 



It is to be regretted that writers who seek controversy, are so prone 

 to assume and assert things without the warranty of fact in support. 

 It was wrong in Mr. Sidebotham to make the incorrect statement just 

 adverted to. It is equally wrong in Mr. Grindon to connect the words 

 " extensive changes in nomenclature " with the name of Mr. Sidebo- 

 tham. Those words occurred in the editorial note (Phytol. 974), but 

 not in Mr. Sidebotham's letter ; and they were repeated by myself 

 only in a paragraph which expressly related to the " editorial wishes 

 for uniformity of nomenclature," (Phytol. 1015). By connecting these 

 words with Mr. Sidebotham's name, Mr. Grindon is enabled to give a 

 point blank contradiction to a charge never made ! 



Thus far I have replied to such portions of Mr. Grindon's letter as 



