210 Misce'lancous. 
AGRIMONIA ODORATA, AITON. 
In the course of an examination of my native species of Rosacee, 
I have had the fortune to detect a good specimen, in fruit, of the 
Agrimonia odorata of the Hortus Kewensis, given to me by the Rev. 
W. W. Newbould, who gathered it at Beaumont in the island of 
Jersey on the 15th of August 1842. I believe this to be the only 
continental plant, not known as a native of Britain, which has been 
added to the flora of the Channel Islands since the publication of 
the ‘ Primitize Flore Sarnice.’ It is distinguished from A. Hupatoria, 
which it greatly resembles, by its ‘‘ greater size,—three to four feet 
high ;” leaves more deeply and more sharply cut, hairy and furnished 
with scattered glands beneath, not cano-tomentose ; tube of the calyx 
of the fruit larger but shorter, bell-shaped or nearly hemispherical, 
not turbinate, uniformly hairy and glandular, only furrowed in its 
upper half, and even there the furrows are shallow; spines longer, 
and the lower ones strongly reflexed ; petals ‘‘ saturate aureis,”’ red 
in the dried specimen. It will probably be detected in some of our 
southern counties if diligently looked for.—C. C. B. 
HASSALL’S ‘‘ BRITISH FRESHWATER ALG.” 
The Editors think it right to make a few observations upon Mr. 
Hassall’s letter printed in the last number of these ‘ Annals,’ and to 
which these remarks would have been appended, had they not thought 
that they might as well allow their readers one month’s opportunity 
of contrasting the letter and the review, believing that the latter is 
by far the best answer to most points brought forward in the former. 
‘They wish it to be distinctly understood that they are not again re- 
viewing the work, and do not intend to be drawn into a paper war, 
which would be totally out of place here. : 
Mr. Hassall complains that the review contains animadversions 
which a careful and candid examination of the work will not justify ; 
they have now to state that a re-examination has only convinced them 
that the reviewer has been very lenient, and that Mr. Hassall should 
have been well-satisfied when he reflects how plentifully he has ap- 
propriated to himself the labours of others. 
Suppose that Mr. Hassall had been engaged for the last two or 
three years in bringing out periodically original and elaborate figures 
with descriptions, as Mr. Ralfs has done, and that some compiler, 
watching close at his heels, had instantly and without ceremony 
copied a very large number of his figures, and given them to the 
world as his own, would Mr. Hassall have been content to acquiesce 
without complaint or remonstrance? ‘To say nothing of the illegality 
of such a proceeding (which however is clear enough), there is too 
much reason to complain of its injustice and disingenuousness. 
It is to little purpose that Mr. Hassall states that ‘‘no one plate 
is a copy of any one of Mr. Ralfs’s,”’ when the figures of which they 
are composed are palpably so, although by transpositions and inver- 
sions the identity of the plates is disguised. 
Our readers may judge for themselves by comparing the plates of 
Desmidee in both works: they will see that there is not a single 
