276 BRITISH BOTANY. 
r more unsuitable binding than that of the Flora of Cheshire. 
Undertaken as a memorial to one who as a man was shy and 
h 
a representation of a bramble the like of which never has been and 
never will be seen so long as the world lasts. The Flora of Kent is 
inoffensive compared with this, but the green of the cover is not 
pleasant, and is easily soiled, while the lettering is ugly. The cover 
of the Glasgow Catalogue is a dirty grey with hideous black lettering. 
Fortunately it is with the contents of the books that we are 
mainly concerned, and here we are able to give a very different 
verdict. Mr. Ewing has done good service by bringing together in 
a handy and cheap form the numerous scattered records for Western 
and Central Scotland, including Watson’s Vice-counties 75-110. It 
orms an important and indeed a necessary supplement to Topo- 
graphical Botany, and we think it is unfortunate that this should 
not appear more prominently in the title, which, as it stands, hardly 
indicates the importance of the work. The introductory remarks 
are not well expressed, but the author’s meaning is usually clear: 
though we confess we do not understand the remark on nomen- 
clature— this ae botanical subject where silence is more precious 
than rubies!”” Mr. Ewing says he has “‘tried to use” the spelling 
r. Sp 
Cheshire, explains the reasons which have led to its publication, not 
only as a contribution to Science, but as ‘‘a fitting memorial” to 
records culled from various publications, all such additions being 
placed in []; localities, similarly indicated, have been contributed 
by Captain A. H, Wolley Dod; and Mr. Moyle Rogers has revised, 
and ‘* as far as possible brought into line with present-day know- 
ledge,” the Roses and Brambles, 
The memorial character of the work is indicated by a charming 
memoir of Lord de Tabley, from the practised pen of his friend Sir 
Mountstuart Grant Duff, containing specimens of his published 
verses and of his unpublished correspondence. It is, we think, to 
be regretted that the notice which appeared in this Journal for 1896 
ee 7 ee 
‘ 
