CORRESPONDING SOCIETIES. 195 



' While heartily endorsing Dr. Balfour's proposal that local Societies 

 should tarn their attention more directly to the study of the life-histories 

 of plants rather than to mere record of new or rare forms, I fear that a 

 direct diversion of the current of work into this direction will have its 

 dangers, which the Societies must be prepared to meet at the outset. Of 

 these the chief would be that in concentrating attention on the life-history 

 the true identification of the species might be overlooked, and so observa- 

 tions, otherwise of great value, might be worse than useless. This danger 

 would not be serious in the case of experienced members, who would merely 

 extend with further detail their present observations on species which 

 they already know ; the danger is rather in the case of younger members, 

 from whom the greater amount of work is to be expected. Unless there 

 were some method of supervision there would be danger of observations 

 on imperfectly identified plants being recorded. That even experienced 

 botanists may make mistakes of identity of plants is shown by a case 

 quoted in his address by the President of Section D, and this will serve to 

 indicate that caution as to the true identity of the plants in question is 

 imperative. I should suggest, therefore, in order to avoid such mistakes, 

 that before any Society proceeded to publish observations, the identity of 

 species to which the observations refer be carefully verified by a committee 

 of experienced members, specimens being in all cases sent in with the 

 drawings and descriptions ; these should be preserved as a guarantee of 

 identity of the species in question. In the cases of critical species a 

 reference of the specimens to some known specialist on that genus would 

 certainly enhance the value of the observations. This may at the outset 

 appear a needless waste of trouble, but I would urge that the value of 

 such observations as those suggested in Dr. Balfour's admirably drawn- 

 up schedule will depend greatly upon the true recognition of the plants 

 concerned, while even a very few mistakes would cause a want of con- 

 fidence in the whole scheme. I even think that a central registration of 

 the results would be an advantage, so as to prevent disappointment by 

 duplicate observation of the same plants, but the drawing together of so 

 many independent and scattered Societies into one system would probably 

 present too many difBculties for practical working. I have every wish 

 for the success of the line of work suggested by Dr. Balfour.' 



Disappearances of Native Plants. — Professor Hillhouse said that he was 

 in charge of a Committee appointed two years ago for the purpose of 

 collecting information as to the disappearance of native plants from 

 their local habitats. Their report for 1887 said the Committee intended 

 presenting a report in 1888 concerning its inquiries in Scotland. He 

 came to that meeting prepared with a report, and learnt to his sur- 

 prise that the Committee had lapsed, but an application had been made 

 to the Committee of Section D to have it reappointed. He gave 

 some brief account of their work in the past year. The report for 

 Scotland covered 85 flowers which were extinct, or were 'practically 

 extinct,' and these were of the most varied kinds. It had been dis- 

 covered that Nymphcea alba (the white water-lily) had been almost 

 exterminated in the lochs about Dumfries; the name of the person 

 who had committed the ravages upon it was brought before the local 

 Natural History Society, an appeal was made to the proprietors of the 

 lochs, and the individual was warned off estates in the neiijhbourhood on 

 pain of prosecution for trespass. There was one plant that had only a 

 single station in Scotland, Scheuchzeria pahistris, which was found in the 



