96 THE LIFE AND WORK OF GEORGE DON. 
Under each species will be quoted the —— expressed 
by Dr. Walker Arnott in “The British Flora” (Ed. vi., 1850, 
and Ed. vii., 1855), by Dr. Boswell Syme in the third edition 
of “ English Botany,” and by Mr. H. C. Watson in the “Cybele 
Britannica” and its “Compendium.” Reference will also be made 
to Sir James E. Smith’s “Flora Britannica” (1800-04), “ English 
Botany” (1795 e¢ seq.), and “The English Flora” (1824-28), Hooker’s 
“Flora Scotica” (1821), Gardiner’s “Flora of Forfarshire” (1848), 
Babington’s “Manual of British Botany” (Ed. vii., 1874), Don’s 
Stark. It is carelessly done, being intended eed as a sketch, and meant to 
beanonymous. Mr. Stark, however, wished to put in my name, which he did in 
his own way, without my ladecterhiies as you will <eaikily a from the style 
of flattery in it. I mention this, because, to my surprise, . Don has fo 
some fault with the mention of 5 plants in the sketch, the — habitats of 
which he claims as of his discovery. Altho’ it is highly ea a “yon 
should otherwise ever have heard of such a publication as 
I ous it right to outrun Mr. Don’s over-jealous fears, ie cautioning you er 
with your permission, any botanical friend who might be writing ‘aia h ae 
that by mentioning ine cee et —— ee epee 
pyrlenaica), Poa distans, and Hier{actum] umbfellatum], 1 had not int of 
negativing Mr. Don’s eee of discovery, and c omens none of ananaiing them 
to myself. In a second edition I can easily remove all dubiety, and will take care 
o so. Indeed, Hier{acium| umb{ellatum] and Valleriana] pyrlenaica] are 
already fas in his Herbarium, and had I quoted any authorities I would 
have quoted it also. And as to oa distans, Mr. D. must be in a mistake, 
as I find I ae already mentioned it (in a review of Dr. Rotheram’s nomenclature 
of Sir R. Sibbald’s plants, published in “Scots Magazine” for April, 1802) as 
growing on Leith shores. 
‘* As to Erioph{orum) po.ystlachyum) and Gal{ium] pusili{um], I really would not 
readily have considered them as so rare plants in Scotland as to be accounted 
discoveries by a botanist like Mr. D., and it was mere accident that I did not 
rather mention such plants as Vicia sylvatica and Strat[iotes| Aloides, ae would 
have equally answered my purpose, and certainly have procured me the same 
eredit with the public. 
r. D. is a most acute botanist, I need not tell you how very confused 
inaccurate a writer he is, nor how much labour it has given me to extract 
the habitats and observations which appear in his 5 published fasciculi. They 
are not yet correct; but they would certainly have been infinitely worse had I 
not transcribed the greater part. I cannot help considering his conduct to me, 
therefore, as partaking not a little of ingratitude. But much delicacy of feeling 
ought not, perhaps, to be expected from one who has had few opportunities of 
convinces me more and more of the justness of my estimate of his violent com- 
plaints against the late Mr. Mackay.”—Z, &. B. 
