Bibliographical Notices. 117 



as the pectoral ; the barbel is not quite half as long as the head. 

 The typical specimen is 19 inches long. 

 The fish is called "Cod" by the colonists. 



Rhombosolea flesoides. 

 B. 6. D. 62. A, 41. 



Similar to R. leporina (Giinth. Catal. Fish. iv. p. 460), but 

 with the body more elevated. Its greatest depth is rather less 

 than one-halt of the total length (without the caudal), the length 

 of the head two-sevenths. Eyes separated by a narrow, low, 

 naked ridge, the lower being in advance of the upper. A cuta- 

 neous flap is suspended from the maxillary, overhanging the 

 mouth. The gill-opening does not extend upwards beyond the 

 base of the pectoral. The dorsal fin terminates at a distance 

 from the caudal, which is one-fourth of the depth of the free 

 portion of the tail ; the first dorsal ray is inserted immediately be- 

 hind the maxillaiy appendage, and the four or five anterior rays 

 are produced beyond the connecting membrane, but consider- 

 ably shorter than those behind the middle of the fin, which are 

 nearly half as long as the head. Caudal subtruncated, its 

 length being rather more than one-sixth of the total. The 

 length of the pectoral is somewhat more than one-half that of 

 the head. Ventral fins as in R. monopus and R, leporina. Uni- 

 form brown. 



Length of the typical specimen 14 inches. 



Called " Flounder " by the colonists. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES. 



The Flora of Essex. By G. S. Gibson, F.L.S. 

 12mo. Loudon: Pamplin. 1862. 



Mr. Watson justly remarks, in his valuable 'Cybele Britannica,* 

 that his difficulties in discovering the geographical distribution of 

 plants iu Great Britain have been greatly increased by the small 

 number of good county floras. The works produced by the last 

 generation of botanists are of course useless for his purpose, owing 

 to the want of exactness so prevalent at the time of their production. 

 Their authors had no idea that it was necessary, or even desirable, 

 to do more than compile a simple catalogue of' the plants found in 

 their districts, and to record the localities of the rarer species. Doubt- 

 less such records as these are valuable, if the compilers were suffi- 

 ciently good botanists to render their determmation of the species 

 trustworthy. Unfortunately, this was often not the case ; and fre- 

 quently plants were marked as "common," not from any certain 

 determination of then- frequency, but from an impression that such 

 was the case. It thus became necessary for Watson to discover by 



