85. CYTERACE^. 87 



Caeex Davalliana, Sm. 



Area U 2 * 10 * 14 16]. 



Incognit. Said to have been found in Somerset (Mr. 

 E. Forster), York (Mr. Teesdale), Haddington and Edin- 

 bui'gh (Mr. E. Maughan), and Kincardine (Prof. J. Beattie). 

 Possibly it was once found at Lansdown, near Bath, and 

 afterwards "lost by drainage." The other alleged locali- 

 ties were probably all erroneous, if not that near Bath 

 also, which is not quite satisfactory. Then why enume- 

 rate them, and use type and paper to repeat again the 

 useless errors of other botanists ? None of the authori- 

 ties above cited now remain among the living, to take 

 umbrage at the remarks that I am here about to subjoin, 

 with a view to meet and answer the objecting question, 

 not asked now for the first time. 



Some botanists not much addicted to the reasoning de- 

 partments of science, have appeared unable to understand, 

 why it is that the Author of the Cybele Britannica should 

 enumerate the errors put on record by other botanists, 

 and should dwell more especially upon those records, the 

 accuracy or inaccuracy of which must be still left in some 

 degree of doubt. It is requisite for the writer of such a 

 work as the present, to know aU the localities reported 

 for each species, as far as possible, and then to consider 

 the credit-worthiness of each of these localities, before he 

 can be sufiiciently prepared to lay down their distribution 

 by a fixed formula, of the comprehensive character of the 

 one adopted for this work. If he should see reason to 

 reject, or only to distrust, any reported localities for a 

 species, the formula would likely be drawn out differently 

 for that species, and more restrictedly than printed 



