200 AN ADDRESS BY THE EDITORS. 
majus as a variety, or have fallen back on the authority of the 
‘ English Flora,’ where these forms constitute two species, 7. minus 
and 7. majus. It is believed that this is still unsettled ; and we 
beg as a favour, that some of our friends provided with a large 
’ suite of specimens will favour us with their views on this subject, 
or give us the means of clearing it up by contributing fresh or 
dry exemplars of these forms. If any or several of our nume- 
rous and kind correspondents will favour us with specimens of 
these three forms, or of any number of forms, we will do our 
best to distinguish them by brief and lucid distinctive character- 
istics. In our description 7. minus is without any authority. 
There are high authorities, Grenier and Godron for example, who 
assert that T. flerwosum and T. saxatile are synonyms. ‘‘ Who 
shall decide when doctors disagree ?”’ ) 
2nd. Our mistake about Ranunculus confusus was very good- 
naturedly pomted out by the eminent editor of the ‘ Journal of 
Botany,’ and by another acute and zealous friend. On this head 
we beg leave to state that there was no intention of foisting on 
the science another element of confusion. Nod. was innocently 
quoted with Grenier’s diagnosis, and believed at the moment to be 
the abbreviated form of some botanist’s name who first established 
the species. The author of Descriptive British Botany, published 
in the ‘ Phytologist,’ will not increase the number of species nor 
contribute to overburden the science with a weight of synonyms, 
under which he has serious apprehensions of its bemg ultimately 
swamped unless some naturalist with the keenness and influence 
of Linnzeus speedily arise to rescue it from this its impending fate. 
Some of our correspondents have been so kind as to inform us that 
the range of the species is not in every case exactly comcident with 
that given by the indefatigable author of the ‘ Cybele Britannica.’ 
This is admitted. We regret that we have not im every case 
availed ourselves of the very latest corrections; and we promise 
to enter in the ‘ Phytologist’ all the discrepancies that exist be- 
tween the ranges as printed in the ‘ Phytologist,” and as most 
recently corrected im the ‘Cybele.’ We have a still greater diffi- 
culty about this point. A much-valued friend has suggested that 
the author of the geographical distribution of the British species 
did not intend to specify the extreme range, either horizontal or 
vertical, but rather the centre or type of distribution. Our ob- 
ject most decidedly is to state the limits, both vertical and hori- 
