OT ORE ee 
BRITISH BOTANY. 277 
was not reprinted, as it gives a fuller record of his botanical work 
as a whole than is to be found elsewhere, and also a botanical 
bibliography, which is wanting in this volume. It would also have 
supplied certain information bearing on the flora which seems to 
have been overlooked ; e.g. we find no reference to the plant which 
Warren called Callitriche Lachii (from the Lach Eye — near 
Chester, where he found the plant), and described as a new species.* 
The same notice contains an account of the genesis ot the Flora, 
which will not be found in the book itself. 
Those who remember the old days when Trimen, Warren, 
bould, and one or two more, were the leaders among field botanists, 
will be glad to find in this Cheshire Flora a tribute to the accurate 
and painstaking work of I. M. Webb, who was wih eame associated 
with them in their work. Like Newbould, Webb was averse from 
publishing, and the entries standing under his naee in our Cate 
logues are but few. ‘‘ During the early seventies Mr. 
Vicia ree (p. 8 
So much had been done by Warren towards the eee of 
the ‘ice, that the “preliminary explanations,” the ‘“ comital 
districts,” and a very interesting accounts of the Bastien 
Hundred and the Wirral district are printed as he left them; these, 
is full and interesting; we are inclined to think that the cautionary 
note regarding J. F. Robinson’s inaccuracies might have been even 
more strongly worded, and a ertain —— which stand _— 
ondon botanist has ihe many years looked forward to the 
completion of the Floras of Kent and Surrey, and it may be hoped 
that the appearance of the one may be followed at no distant date 
by re publication of the other. It is twenty-six years since Mr. 
anbury anno rae in this Journal that he had taken up the pre- 
Aw 
editing of this important Flo 
h 
i d 
the penseplbtiins 0 of the book. It was emphatically worth waiting 
* It is now referred to C. obtusangula, and is doubtless included in tite 
that name, 
