516 Bibliographical Notices. 
But we have done fault-finding, and have much pleasure in praising 
the book in other respects. The Introduction is a valuable contri- 
bution to our knowledge of the range in altitude of Irish plants. 
We are not aware that any accurate data previously existed on that 
subject, which the peculiar climate of Ireland renders of more than 
ordinary interest. It is remarkable that there is a decided fall in the 
upper limits of some plants in Ireland when compared with those to 
which they attain in Scotland. Dr. Dickie mentions the following 
instances :— 
Euphrasia officinalis in North-east Scotland attains 3400 feet ; in 
North-east Ireland, 2400; in Mayo, only 1700. The corresponding 
numbers for Melampyrum pratense are 3000, 2200, 1900; for 
Pinguicula vulgaris, 2800, 2000, and 800; Orchis maculata, 3000, 
1950, 1800; and Carex binervis, 3000, 2000, 1800. This is the 
more remarkable when we remember that the climate is believed to 
rise in temperature as we proceed from South-east Scotland by Ulster 
to Mayo. May we attribute the superior range in Scotland to the 
direct sunlight, of which there certainly is much less in cloudy and 
rainy Mayo than in Ulster, and especially than in Aberdeenshire? 
We have stated our belief that the book is not improved by the 
addition of an imperfect list of the plants of a small part of northern 
Mayo, and nearly the whole of Sligo; for as a Flora of Ulster it 
may justly claim to be tolerably complete (according to its author’s 
views of species), but as treating of the whole north coast of Ireland 
‘it cannot have any such claim. We are far from wishing the 
western plants to have remained unrecorded ; but it would have been 
more convenient to have found the list of them placed as an appendix 
to the Ulster list. There is very much still to be done before we 
shall know accurately the plants of the far west. Who has examined 
the wild mountains in the interior of Erris, called the Nephin Beg 
range? or who, except the present writer, has botanized in the 
Mullet? If these districts have been explored, we know of no pub- 
lished account of the results. Both lie to the north of the 54th degree. 
Let us now turn to the species, and place side by side the Floras 
of Tate and Dickie. We have already remarked that the latter 
seems to care nothing about critical plants: here, therefore, we at 
once meet with a marked difference between the books. One ex- 
ample will suffice, and we will take the first. Tate records Ranun- 
culus peltatus, R. Drouetii, R. Baudotii, R. circinatus, and R. he- 
deraceus. In place of these, Dickie gives for the same district R. 
aquatilis, R. tripartitus, and R. hederaceus. Here R. aquatilis of 
course includes the first three of Tate’s species; but what has be- 
come of R. circinatus, which no botanist who has paid any attention 
to it can doubt being distinct ; and what is R. tripartitus? Surely 
the latter is not the true plant. The former appears, in Dr. Dickie’s 
Supplement, as a plant about which some doubt may be entertained; - 
but Mr. Tate and Mr. Stewart have both gathered it. This instance 
will suffice to show that Tate’s Flora is necessary, in addition to 
Dickie’s, if we require complete information of what is known about 
the plants of Ulster. 
