334 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
Most of the papers were illustrated by lantern slides. The 
meetings of the section were Ms ona tgp in spite of this, 
the discussions arising out of the paper e, as a whole, feeble 
in the extreme. This was doubtloe Be some extent due to the 
fact that the oe given on the programme for both paper and 
Paine was usually exceeded by the former alone. By the 
absence of a pects the reader of the paper suffers, as one 
roast g ‘think. that the sole object in reading a paper at such a 
meeting was to invite criticism before results are published 
botanical excursion had not been arranged. The botanists of the 
Manchester University did all they could in the interests of the 
section. 
TRINOMIALS. 
Tue Editor’s remarks (p. 254) on trinominals, so far as they 
refer to me and to the Cambridge British Flora, are apparently 
based on a misconce nthe and are certainly misdirected. I am 
. xvil, of my Introduction; but on that page the question of 
trinominals does not arise. There I justified a rie | ane 
point, namely, that a species with varieties should be wholly sub- 
= : ed into Maiciner and I cannot for a aiiiaan ree that 
a subdivi of a species necessitates the use of trinomitnilag 
ar Saeed that it hak any relation whatever to trinominals. 
C. E. Moss. 
R. Moss’s note renders the present a favourable opportunity 
for das discussion of the subject indicated in the course of a. 
Clu 1 Ih 
notice of the Watson Exchange Club Report on p. 189. ave 
had the opportunity of talking the matter —— with Dr. Rendle, 
and the ee remarks have his concur 
I was not unaware of Dr. Moss’s joan sign of trinomials, 
oe I aid not intend to suggest that he had advocated, defended, 
actually employed them. Nevertheless I am still of opines 
that the logical outcome of the action justified by him on p. x 
of the Cambridge Flora, which he considers “a wholly different 
point” must pa in — eye of a name consisting of 
aie words for one of two, and this, even if the third word is 
