1129 



continental authority ; nor, probably, was he able to do so. But the 

 editorial note more expressly refers to Steudel's ' Nomenclator Bota- 

 nicus,' as an authority which should form the basis of a new Catalogue 

 of names and synonymes. That work is, indeed, a most valuable and 

 important one ; and it is constantly in requisition with botanists, as a 

 work of reference which is indispensible to every writer on plants, 

 when names and synonymes have to be ascertained. 



Under these circumstances, a comparison between the Edinburgh 

 Catalogue and Steudels' work may fairly be instituted, to show how 

 close is the correspondence between the Catalogue and the great con- 

 tinental authority for names. They both bear the date of 1841, but 

 of course the Nomenclator was much longer in printing. Now, I find 

 that as the names of species stand in the Edinburgh Catalogue, nearly 

 two hundred of them are given by Steudel as synonymes only. They 

 are thus not the names which this continental authority deems most 

 properly applied to the plants. If we add, further, some score or 

 more of names in the Edinburgh Catalogue, which have no place at 

 all in the work of Steudel (Atriplex deltoidea, Cerastium atrovirens, 

 &c.), we may say that upwards of two hundred names in the Cata- 

 logue differ fi'om those applied to the plants by Steudel. This is a 

 very large proportion, exceeding one in every eight names. The 

 Edinburgh Catalogue includes nearly 1600 reputed species. 



After this example of alleged correspondence, let us now look at 

 the contrary example of alleged difference. The plan of the London 

 Catalogue, rejecting dubious species and many very dubious natives, 

 necessarily reduces the sum total. The list of indigenous and intro- 

 duced species, including the sub-species of Rubus, amounts to 1464 ; 

 but as nearly thirty of these are additional species, not in the Edin- 

 burgh Catalogue, the proper comparison must be made on the other 

 1435. It is troublesome to compare an arranged with an alphabeti- 

 cal list very minutely ; but on going over the two, I find only about 

 eighty species in the London Catalogue whose names differ from those 

 in the Edinburgh Catalogue. This is a proportion of about one name 

 in every eighteen. 



There is something amusing, truly, in such a result. The Cata- 

 logue which is praised for corresponding with continental authorities, 

 actually differs from the great continental authority for nomenclature, 

 to the extent of one-eighth of the whole. But the Catalogue which 

 is blamed for not corresponding with that of Edinburgh, actually dif- 

 fers from it only to the extent of one-eighteenth t 



1 have not leisure to pursue the comparison further, but am dis- 



5c 



