qh 



^ ^^$\^^ d « ^^tii$^t${{j^ |}«#fi. 



By the Bev. II. IL WOOD, M.A., F.G.S. 



N giving an estimate of tlie number of plants found in any- 

 particular county or district it is necessary, in the first 

 place, to specify the system of nomenclature which has 

 been followed ; otherwise the enumeration can be of little or no use 

 for the purpose of comparison with the Flora of any other county 

 or district. For whilst one authority is given to magnify small 

 differences until, in his eyes, they assume the proportions of 

 species, another, in avoiding this Charybdis, f aUs into the Scylla 

 of generalizing to such a degree that he has no little difficulty 

 in acknowledging any such thing as a species at all. As 

 instances of these widely different methods of procedure, 

 when applied to English Botany, I may mention the latest 

 edition (1874) of the "London Catalogue of British Plants" and 

 the "Handbook of the British Flora," by Mr. Bentham (1865). 

 If we follow the first authority we have in our Flora (excluding 

 the Characese) 1,665 species; whilst, if we take Mr. Bentham 

 for om- guide, we have only 1,292 — a difference of no less than 

 373 "species." 



The person responsible for the present form of the London 

 Catalogue is Mr. Hewett C. Watson, one of the very best 

 botanists in England, who in his most valuable work, 

 " Compendium of Cybcle Britannica," published in 1875, allowed 

 no more than 1,428 species. But he has now been persuaded 

 into following a suggestion made to him by another "competent 

 and judicious botanist," which is to this effect : — By all means 



