INTRODUCTION xvii 



given in the Bibliography. Until the student is well advanced, Bentham and Hooker 

 will however suffice. Finally, so far as identification goes, there remains the process 

 of comparison with descriptions of species in any of the standard floras, such as the 

 above, perhaps a more natural method than the arbitrary use of analytical keys, 

 which are artificial. 



Though not to be recommended in the first resort, comparison with figures may 

 be advised where descriptions, as too often happens, lack the power of expression 

 of the meaning of differences or separate characters. Only an illustration or 

 specimen can properly convey an idea of size, colour, relation of parts, habit, and 

 form-structure as a whole. 



For the same reason that illustrations are more helpful than descriptions, 

 especially in the case of closely-allied species, comparison with herbarium specimens 

 may be recommended. 



In each case comparison should follow, not precede or replace, an effort to 

 identify a plant by means of descriptions or the use of a key. 



Not until the botanist has made some progress in the identification of plants, 

 and has gained some confidence, will he, if wise, undertake definite survey work on 

 any extensive scale. When, however, the time has come to study any particular 

 area, say a county, it will be of interest to discover the distribution of the plants 

 observed. For a single county the county flora will suffice to give the desired 

 information, and any plant found, which is not included in that work, or a supple- 

 ment to it, will constitute a new county record (N.C.R.), and proud will be the 

 botanist, in a well-worked area, if he or she can make any noteworthy additions to 

 the list. If the flora is an old one this will not be so difficult for such critical genera 

 as Rubus or Hieracium', for the older botanists only knew the aggregate species, 

 and were unacquainted with the new segregates; and, as has been seen, since 1835 

 some 600 species have been added to the British plant list. 



If, moreover, the botanist elects to travel about and to botanize in a number of 

 counties, it will be more difficult to discover if a plant is new to any particular 

 district or not, without some knowledge of distribution generally. 



In Vol. I some general remarks have been given upon distribution, and a sum- 

 mary and map of the botanical districts or vice-counties into which the country 

 was divided by H. C. Watson. The latter was indeed the pioneer of plant 

 geography in this country. His Topographical Botany is a summary of the flora of 

 each county, and to this work, and his other works, everyone interested in this 

 branch of botany must turn. The data given in Vol. II-V as to distribution 

 are based upon this and other works quoted below. Watson's Topographical 

 Botany, 3rd Edition, with the supplement compiled by Mr. Arthur Bennett, extends 

 to 1903. Additions since that date are to be found in the Reports of the Botanical 

 Society and Exchange Club of the British Isles, edited by Mr. G. C. Druce, or in 

 the Journal of Botany ; whilst if the flora of a county be a recent one, that work 

 should include all recent additions up to the date of its publication. 



For Ireland, R. L. Praeger's Irish Topographical Botany should be consulted. 

 Three useful papers on Irish distribution have been published by the Rev. E. S. 

 Marshall, viz. Review of Irish Topographical Botany, On the Probable Status of some 

 Irish Plants, Remarks on the Cybele Hibernica. Ed. 2. 



The distribution of Rubi in Great Britain is dealt with in a paper by the Rev. 

 W. M. Rogers, 1902. Comital Census Numbers, by G. C. Druce, 1909, deals with 

 the estimate of counties throughout the British Isles, where each species has been 

 observed, as given in the Oxford Plant List. The London Catalogue of British 

 Plants also cites the census numbers for each species. 



