LIGHTFOOT’S VISIT TO WALES IN 1773 291 
make their finds in company. But there can be no doubt that the 
two friends are jointly responsible for the records, regarded as a 
whole. Both of them collected specimens as they a along : 
Banks’s are at the British Museum, and include plants not men- 
tioned in the Journal. They also paar plants preter to 
him by oa eben after the return to ty) 
(Lightfoot’s herbarium ttewey to puis ‘been dispersed. The 
canes: rh of it is given a aed Smith in the memoir 
prefixe d to Smith’s Cor) exponen (i. 2 89) -— 
n the year 1791, that Sir James’s 
friend, Dr. Goodenough Bishop" of Carlisle, being about to write a 
botanical paper on the British species of Carex, had occasion to 
consult the herbarium of Mr. Lightfoot. This had been bought by 
His Majesty George III.* on the death of its original possessor, and 
presented to the Queen. Dr. Goodenough obtained permission to 
examine ue Rie arena being present when he went to Frogmore, 
n 
havtineinie’s vty much da ged, and recommended ‘Her Majesty to 
have it looked over na pat intelligent person, mentioning a 
petra and a Che s Smith, as either of them capable 
his in 
Flora, ii. 20, 180 6) When or how the herbarium left Frogmore we 
do not know; but Sir William Hooker etre she vii. 841, 1855) 
tells us it was then in the possession of Mr. B ; the specimens 
of Athyrium fontanum gathered by Lightfoot ot  atioeshatn Church 
and referred to by Sir William are now in the British Herbarium 
of the Department of aimee Ele as are those from Alnwick mentioned 
in the same paper. Brown’s herbarium ‘sotketnad many specimens 
ae soa rine some of han named by Smith—doubtless when 
he examined it as above mentioned—but hardly to the extent which 
wonid cca the sonst that Lightfoot’s whole collection was 
included in it. Mr. Boulger ( Journ. Bot. 1883, 164) says that 
Lightfoot’s if katbates was included in that of G. 8. Gibson, and in 
the Biographical Index it is said to be at Kew: bui there seems no 
sufficient foundation > pred of these statement 
* For a hundred guineas, oa Druce, Fl. Oxfordshire, 357. 
t+ In the interesting and cri ‘introductory remarks on the composition 
of a Flora Britannica,” prefix cua wl his ‘* Observations on the British Species of 
Bromus” (Trans. Linn. Soe. iv. 276), and on that account but little known, 
Smith criticizes the Flora Scotica somewhat severely: * spe be so much 
uncertainty in compiled synonyms and descriptions, even when inform 
from whence they are derived, what shall we say to a _ Lightfoot’ pin of 
copying from all quarters without any acknowledgmen’ 2? His book is 
made up of from Linneus, Haller, Scopoli, Dillenius and Gmelin; and 
i agreement of those passages wi with the 
he is not by any means attentive 
native plants to which he applies 
