90 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
exclusively or chiefly recorded in floras in their non-indigenous 
localities.” Many of such plants are recorded in most floras in a 
perfectly general way, assigned to no detailed localities, just because 
they occur too frequently to make detail tolerable. It is fair then 
king a case 
nst indigeneity. And it is to this point that a few lines may 
- . + + Native. Generally distributed.” Its 
occurrence in Kent (after Hanbury and Marshall), «‘ Native. —Culti- 
Flora of Berks (G.C. Druce) notes exceptions, Native .. . common 
doubt Mr. Dunn would agree to this estimate—‘ native 
luxuriantly in marshy meadows, and similar very wet spots, and 
retained any doubt of its status. The point, I imagine, at which 
many will part company with Mr nn, is reached with the 
records from any prepared ground, or ground disturbed by the 
occupancy of man. i co dsides, waste 
The species is frequent in suc ocalities; gardens, railway and 
other ballast, and many other varieties of ground produce it in 
quantity, and in some variety of form. I may misunderstand 
r. Dunn’s point; but it is only here that I can see any opening 
for doubt of the indigeneity of R. repens, There is nothing in its 
Therefore human agency is the means of its introduction into such 
localities. But surely it cannot be doubted that it grows widely 
area where re, grew before disturbance. Any deliberate 
introduction by man to the localities in question is of cou - 
possible ; and in most cases— g d merely disturbed, and 
