278 VI. EXPLANATIONS OP THE 



grounds of such a supposition. Tussilago Farfara is very probably in 

 the same condition ; being also placed in the group of species found iu 

 37 (not 38) subprovinces, and given as absent from one of the northern 

 and Scottish subprovinces, on the like ground of its omission from the 

 Hebridean list, or being there misnamed, Pelasites, as suggested in 

 volume second, pages 108 and 109. Many other such examples might 

 be cited, where inequalities are induced or increased by incomplete 

 knowledge of localities ; while in other examples, probably, inexact 

 knowledge may operate in the contrary manner, by rendering the dif- 

 ferences apparently less than a complete acquaintance with the facts 

 would show them to be. 



Third. — Some of the lines terminate with specific names, or with nos. 

 which correspond with the names of other plants, constituting together 

 a column of names and nos. very partially filled in. They relate to 

 Bentham's ' Handbook of the British Flora,' — a new work which has 

 only come to hand since the 'Summary of Distribution' was in the 

 press. This ' Handbook' is remarkable for carrying the aggregation of 

 species to an extreme, which is widely at variance with the practice of 

 segregation, so current of late years among the botanists of this country. 

 In the 'Summary' the number of plants treated as species is 1424; 

 though truly not all of them believed to be such by the present writer. 

 The addition of Gladiolus communis or imbricalus raises the number to 

 1425 in the preceding ' Census.' In the fourth edition of the ' Manual 

 of British Botany,' so frequently mentioned in former pages, the same 

 plants appear as 1495 good and true species. On the contrary, in the 

 •Handbook of the British Flora' the same plants are reduced to 1175 

 species. Thus, the actual difference between the books of Bentham 

 and Babington, in regard to the disputed point, of which are true 

 species, amounts to 320 species, without reckoning the aliens and those 

 peculiar to Ireland or the Channel Isles. 



Now, as a general rule, it may be said that the segregates which are 

 held species by some botanists, only varieties by other botanists, have 

 had their localities less fully and less accurately recorded. Thus, they 

 will usually be placed too low in the census list. Further, it may be 

 remarked again, that the separation of these disputed segregates must 

 more or less vitiate and make doubtful the recorded habitats and 

 localities of the old species from which they are dissevered. Some of 

 these latter may thus be placed too high in the same list. The rather 

 extreme views of Mr. Bentham aflord means and opportunity for 



