201 
LONDON CATALOGUE OF BRITISH PLANTS: 
NINTH EDITION. 
The | London Catalogue | of | British Plants. | Part I. | Containing | the 
ritish Pheenogamia, Filices, | Equisetaceze, Lycopodiaceze, | Selaginellacex, 
Marsileaceze, | and Characez. | [9 lines of explanation] | Ninth Edition. | 
[By F. J. Hanbury] London: | George Bell & Son ms, . . | 1895. [8vo., 
50 pages] 
No one can do justice to this new edition in a short notice, for the 
number of additions and changes in nomenclature is enormous. 
On the whole we consider Mr. Hanbury’s work a success, and 
certainly an improvement on the 8th edition. It should be so, for 
he has been aided in his arduous labour by Mr. B. D. Jackson, 
compiler of the Index Kewensis, by Mr. James Britten, Editor of the 
Journal of Botany, and by Mr. Arthur Bennett, now Editor of the 
Supplement to the 3rd Edition of the English Botany. ‘These 
gentlemen,’ the preface tells us, ‘have not only met as a small 
committee at my house on many occasions, to consider the very 
numerous suggestions brought forward in our botanical periodicals, 
and by many correspondents and critics, but have also proved 
constant and willing referees throughout the work. Among those 
who have offered suggestions I may specially mention Dr. F. A. Lees, 
Messrs. W. A. Clarke, G. C. Druce, W. Pumfrey, and F. C. S. Roper. 
The Batrachian Ranunculi and Characee have been revised by 
Messrs. H. and J. Groves; £filobium by the Rev. E. S. Marshall, 
who has also made valuable suggestions on the Féstuce and other 
plants, many of which are embodied in various parts of the Caalogue ; 
Viola, Anthyllis, and Juncacee by Mr. W. H. Beeby en by 
Mr. F. Townsend; Zhalictrum and Alchemiila by: the Rev. E. F 
Linton; Rosa and Rubus by the Rev. W. Moyle Rogers, on his 
devoted much time and attention to a very arduous work; Sadtx by 
the late Dr. F. B. White; Potamogeton and Carex by Mr. Arthur 
Bennett.’ 
This help given by specialists in their own genera must be an 
incalculable advantage to all workers with this new edition ; but why, 
may we ask, were not the names of the specialists and the genera 
they were undertaking advertised long ago in our. botanical and 
natural history periodicals. Nearly every collection of any size could 
have added a number of hybrids or varietal forms interesting to the 
student of a special genus, if not always of sufficient value to be 
added to the Catalogue. Mr. Hanbury assumes this by writing :— 
‘During no period’—i.e., 1886-1895 —‘ probably, has better critical 
field work been performed than that accomplished during the last 
few years. A large number of workers, a more advanced knowledge 
July 1895. 
