1130 



posed to believe, that the eighty names of the London Catalogue, 

 which differ from those of the Edinburgh Catalogue, would be found 

 more frequently in use in continental works, than are the correspond- 

 ing names or synonymes of the Edinburgh Catalogue: not in each in- 

 dividual instance, probably, but on the average of the whole. More- 

 over, so many of the plants which appear as species in the Edinburgh 

 Catalogue, are enumerated as varieties only by Steudel, that it seems 

 likely enough the London Catalogue may be nearer to the Nomen- 

 clator in this respect, although I cannot say so with certainty. The 

 truth is, that continental authors of influence and reputation differ 

 among themselves fully as much as (and probably more than) our Bri- 

 tish authors. Particular foreign authors might be selected, with 

 whose works the Edinburgh Catalogue is in closer correspondence ; 

 but my own supposition is, that the names of the London Catalogue, 

 on an average, correspond better with those in the greater number of 

 continental publications. Let it be observed, the differences in the 

 two Catalogues are seldom on questions of right or priority ; but turn 

 more frequently on the greater or less subdivisions (and consequently 

 re-naming) of old established genera. Thus, the Linnaean genus Poa 

 appears under two names in the London Catalogue, but under three 

 in that of Edinburgh. The Linnaean genus Scirpus is retained in the 

 London Catalogue, but subdivided into Scirpus, Isolepis and Eleo- 

 charis in that of Edinburgh; yet so little natural is this subdivision, 

 that we find S. multicaulis and pauciflorus — species so like as to be 

 constantly confounded — put into different genera. 



Hewett C. Watson. 

 Thames Ditton, October 2, 1844. 



[There appears to be some slight misapprehension on the part of both Mr. Dennes 

 and Mr. Watson, with regard to certain portions of Mr. Sidebotham's note, and of the 

 editorial note appended thereto. 1. We do not find that Mr. Sidebothara anywhere 

 praises the Edinburgh Catalogue for " corresponding with continental authorities," he 

 says that it " was to make our names agree with the continental ones," not that it 

 had done so. 2. The tendency of the editorial note is, on the whole, approval of the 

 London Catalogue, mingled however with regret that uniformity of nomenclature has 

 not hitherto been attained, and inviting correspondence on the subject. This, indeed, 

 is expressly stated at the outset of the note; and the omission or alteration of a single 

 word — a mere lapsus calami — would take away even the appearance of censure. Ed."] 



