II. INEQUALITY OF SPECIES. SI 



cies, which were alleged to have been found in Australia 

 by Dr. Eobert Brown. In fact, they may be deemed 

 queries applicable in greater or less degree to the botany 

 of all countries, to the smallest and nearest, as well as to 

 the largest and most remote. In comparing tlie vegeta- 

 tion or floras of different subdivisions of one country so 

 small as Britain, much error might arise unless the spe- 

 cies were first brought to a common standard. 



Let it be supposed that we desire to trace through 

 Britain the distribution of Epipactis latifoUa. In the 

 older works on British botany, and even down to those 

 of recent date, this name included the E. ovalis (Bab.) 

 and E. media (Fries) along with the species still left 

 under the name of E. latljolia, after taking off those two 

 segregates. When we look into the books printed some 

 years ago, and there find localities for Ej). latifoUa, it is 

 often quite impossible to say which of the three modern 

 species was intended by the name. All three might be 

 included, or one of the three only might be intended by 

 that name in a local list. Even down to the present 

 year, some botanists doubtless are recording the segre- 

 gates under the aggregate name, without enabling the 

 Phyto-geographer to decide which of them is thereby 

 intended. 



It is only by one who has largely engaged in botanico- 

 geographical investigations, that the doubts and difficul- 

 ties thus continuall}" engendered can be fully appreciated. 

 It must for a long time keep geographical botany far 

 backward ; because the Phj-to-geographer cannot look 

 only on living and dried I)laiits. He must be continually 

 using back records as well, in the making of which these 

 modern distinctions were not used or known ; that is, he 

 must consult records in which the segregate species of 

 the present day are treated as unit-species under names 



