1858.] Reviews. 473 



A few remarks on the list itself are deferentially offered to the 

 consideration of the learned compilers. And first, among the 

 rarissima is observed Sisymbrium Irio, a plant which has not, to 

 om' knowledge, been seen near London for many years, except in 

 the Wandsworth station, near the steam-boat pier, and there it 

 may be assumed on good grounds to be an introduction, not in 

 ballast, ])ut in corn. AUhcea hirsuta is also generally unknown, 

 except in a field between Cobham Park and Ciixton, Kent, except- 

 ing in the before-mentioned station near Wandsworth. Oxalis 

 corniculata is almost unknown in the south-east of England. 

 O. stricta occurs here and there in the valley of the Thames, 

 and 0. corniculata has been known to grow at Albury, near 

 Guildford, for several years. The members of the Botanical 

 Club are to be congratulated on the discovery of Potentilla 

 verna in Kent. Poterium muricatum is another rare novelty. 

 Crepis paludosa and C. succiscefolia are entered in the list 

 probal)lj__bj_jnktake 3 but if they are Kentish plants the 

 'Cybele' will require some alteration. Crepis paludosa is 

 stated to range from 51° to 58°. The other species only 

 reaches 54°. Alchemilla vulgaris and Pinguicula vulgaris are 

 also entered as plants of North Kent. Does Mr. Salmon or 

 Mr. Mill admit them as Surrey plants? Primula farinosa and 

 Salvia pratensis may be placed in the same category as most 

 of the above, i.e. doubtful natives or even naturalized plants of 

 that part of Kent as defined by the members of the Greenwich 

 Natural History Club. Myosotis alpestris and Veronica humifusa 

 are alpine plants, never seen at so low an altitude as Shooter's 

 Hill. Secondly, we venture to point out a few omissions or mis- 

 takes. On p. 15 there is printed Spirata Ulmaria, S. urbanum,. 

 c, intermedium. Geum is omitted. Erica Tetralix, sp. sola. 

 E. cinerea surelj grows on Keston Common and probably in other 

 parts within the district. Veronica hederifolia it is humbly pre- 

 sumed should be V. hederafolia. For this and possibly other 

 orthographic variations the compilers may plead the authority of 

 the London Catalogue, and few will dispute the validity of the 

 plea. 



We hope the amiable chairman of the Botanical section of 

 the Club will excuse our notice of these trivialities and receive 

 our sincere thanks for his courtesy in gi\ ing us the pleasure of 

 calling the attention of our readers to this very interesting do- 



N. S. VOL. II, 3 p 



