144 THE VICTORIAN NATURALIST, 



— Cassytha pubescens, R. Br. ; Lycopus australis, R. Br. ; 

 Pimelea elachanta, F. v. M. ; and Fomaderris suhrepanda, 

 Reisseck and F. v. M., all collected by Mr. D'Alton, Dimboola. 

 The last-named plant occurs on limestone ridges in different 

 parts of the northern Mallee as a low shrub, while in other districts 

 it is only found on the banks of watercourses, attaining a height 

 of 15 feet. South-West. — Pomaderris subrepanda, Reisseck 

 and F. v, M., Grampians, C. Walter. South. — Acacia montana, 

 Bentham, and Sambucus xanthocarpa, F. v. M., Myrniong, 

 Brittlebank and Walter, — Chas. Walter. Melbourne, 14th 

 December, 1899. 



Records of Victorian Plants. — Mr. F. M. Reader, of 

 Dimboola, forwards a long criticism of Mr. C. Walter's " Records 

 of Victorian Plants/' in the October Naturalist, in which he states 

 that since September, 1896, he has exhibited at the meetings of 

 the Field Naturalists' Club of Victoria specimens of some 60 

 plants, either new to science or new for the north-western 

 district of Victoria, but of these only 13 are mentioned in Mr. 

 Walter's list, while 39 of those mentioned as new for the north- 

 west had already been enumerated in Mr. D'Alton's notes read 

 before the A.A.A.S., Sydney, in January, 1898. With reference 

 to the latter list, Mr. Reader says that of grasses alone he has 

 collected and identified some 70 species in the district, besides 

 which he has put aside a considerable number for future deter- 

 mination, while Mr. D'Alton enumerates only 25, and the names 

 of several plants, not uncommon in the north-west, are given 

 which are not mentioned in Mr. D'Alton's paper. 



[The discrepancy between Mr. Walter's and Mr. Reader's 

 records seems to have arisen through the former not seeing the 

 Naturalist regularly, and recording only those plants of which he 

 had examined specimens, and which had not been included in 

 the supplementary lists published. It is to be hoped that an 

 official supplement to the " Key " will be published by the 

 Government Botanist at an early date. — Ed. Vict. Nat^ 



British Museum Catalogue of Birds. — Mr. Robert Hall 

 writes : — " I cannot but feel that Dr. Morgan, -in his letter in last 

 month's Naturalist, has unfairly referred to the above work. 

 Like many human efforts, it may not be perfect, but, personally, 

 I have found the work so distinctly above all others on the 

 subject that I immediately go to it when seeking information. 

 Gould's publications are, no doubt, excellent for external 

 characters and field information, but for nomenclature, distribu- 

 tion, and internal characters, unless one wants to stand still for 

 ever, the ' British Museum Catalogue ' must be the authority, and 

 the whole trend of modern biological knowledge shows that it is 

 to be preferred rather than Gould. My object in writing is not 

 to discuss the points at issue in the letter referred to, but to 

 briefly uphold the ' Catalogue ' against an ungenerous attack." 



