66 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
the right use and understanding of the work, of which we hope no 
false modesty will prevent Mr. Jackson from claiming his share. 
The present Supplement, useful and indeed indispensable as it 
in the original work. We are not insensible to the appeal contained 
i in an 
in the last sentence of Sir W. T. Thiselton-Dyer’s preface; in a 
i e fee 
oO 
2 
a 
on 
© 
© 
= 
ee 
ie) 
@o 
rs 
g. 
2 
= 
§ 2 
° 
oB 
x 
5 
i) 
of 
& 
oo 
s 
= 
Ss 
=} 
— 
oO 
m 
tf 
= 
n 
For example, under Cynosurus we find C. Cavara and C. macara— 
if one has a large initial, go should the other; C. ciliaris Rottl., 
e 
as are also Dactylis cynosuroides Koen. and D. madraspatensis Roxb. 
‘‘Hybr.,”” which appears as a locality for two Centaureas, is 
intended to indicate that they are hybrids—are hybrids included 
in the plan of the work? and, if so, why is not the usual sign 
employed to distinguish them ? 
It might have been expected that the lines laid down in the 
original work and its first supplement would have been followed, 
especially when it is remembered how a similar sequence is ob- 
served in the Flora Capensis, at the expense of convehience. But 
nd ‘‘ Tourn.” given as the authority for the genus Eryngium, 
stands correctly as “[Tourn.] Linn.”: « Caltha, Rupp.” should 
similarly be ‘‘ Caltha [Rupp.] Linn.” The unhappy Kew innovation 
small initial is here for the first time introduced into the book. 
We note that the specific names, regardless of gramm quot 
e form in whi ey were originally published—see under 
Amomum, where we have brachychilus, macr , and paludosum ; 
this we think the better plan, but should not the Sup 
the original work in such matt: If it were desired to in 
inclusion appears purely a matter of chance. A reference to the 
numerous names cited under Digitaria from Willdenow, Persoon, 
