88 III. INTRODUCED SPECIES. 



Denmark, Netherlands, and Northern France ; — therefore, 

 why not in England ? We maj'^ allow that its occurrence 

 along "Western Eui'ope, in latitudes corresponding with 

 Britain, would give an antecedent j)robability or expecta- 

 tion that it might also occur wild in Britain. Still, such 

 a mere expectation is no real evidence to be set against 

 the conditions, natural or artificial, under which the spe- 

 cies is truly found in this country. And it is at any rate 

 mainly on the evidence afforded by those conditions, that 

 we ought to decide as to its native origin or otherwise. 

 Notwithstanding the antecedent probability in this in- 

 stance, there seems to be abundant reason for doubting 

 the true nativity of the Anemone ranunculoides in Eng- 

 land, when we find that the three most reliable records 

 locate the plant in or near gardens only. Thus, the 

 Herts locality is described as being " on the lawn in front 

 of a house, not far from the church at Abbots Langley " 

 (Mr. Hincks). In Staffordshire, it was observed " growing 

 plentifullj^ about the lawn at Steepenhill Vicarage, with 

 Galanthus nivalis" (Mr. Borrer). In Yorkshire, it is 

 " naturalised near a garden at Everingham " (Mr. Back- 

 house). For the other four or five counties we have no 

 sufficient information about the kind of situations in 

 which the jjlant was found ; nor is it quite certain that 

 the species found was rightly named in all of these latter 

 counties. Here, it may be contended, that the facts 

 about the species in Britain are adverse to the idea of A. 

 rammculoicles being truly native ; and that while no better 

 evidences are adduced for Britain, the fact of nativity 

 elsewhere ought not to warrant an inclusion of the spe- 

 cies among our undisputed natives. 



A second example may be added, in which such records 

 dii-ectly oppose the opinion avowed by M. De Candolle, 

 in regard to a reputed British plant ; perhaps thus 



