239 
FURTHER REMARKS ANENT THE 
NEW LONDON CATALOGUE OF PLANTS. 
My friend Mr. Peacock’s review in the June issue of this journal 
has so far forestalled what I would have said, that I hardly know 
where to begin. ‘Confusion worse confounded’ was the first 
impression after a cursory glance down the columns devoted to 
Salix, modified by a glimpse of ‘method in the madness’ on further 
study of the Rubi, Rosz, Epilobes, and Viole. The alterations of 
name, however, must surely provoke disastrous ebullitions of temper 
in all but the limited band of botanical doctrinaires, and that other 
handful of students who come, with trained minds fresh from 
modern schools, to the study of botanology. 
The conflict of the codes as to christener and christened still 
goes on; and the catalogue continues to mirror the successes and 
reverses in that war over words. If finality might only be attained, 
well and good; but this side the millenium there seems a ‘lile 
view’ of it, as they say in the dales. Not only are changes in 
nomenclature plenty, but worse—there are not wanting reversions 
to the titles of the 6th and 7th Watsonian editions; for instance, 
the Hawkweed, No. 990, the new-fangled Eupatorium Griseb., of 
the 8th edition, has doffed ‘the prior’ gown—not a Prior’s let us 
hope—to don once again the familiar (Fries!) kilt of corymbosum/ 
The want of a descriptive text-book in agreement with the 
names is a great drawback to its usefulness. The primary purpose 
of the catalogue—a check-list for use in the field, or in arranging 
herbaria—being what it is, where a name has been changed out of 
all recognition save by the cognoscenti, the long-in-use name should 
have been given in brackets at least. Uncertainty, if not quite 
hopeless, may lead a few dogged minds to enquire and acquire new 
light in the process; whilst to myself the double-shuffle executed in 
this new edition adds a zest to the viewing and affords an amusing 
variant on the acrostic; but still one feels quite sure the prevalent 
topsyturveydom is a nuisance to most. ‘Priority’ is all very well, 
but in the matter of one Immortal—Linnzus—some allowance for 
sentiment might (I think) and will by many be made whether or no. 
If the hieraciarch of this new L.C.—to adopt Mr. Britten’s witty 
title for Hawkweed Hanbury, the editor thereof—thinks he has 
silenced adverse criticism by the device of calling into counsel 
(in camera) most of those botanists who animadverted on the 1886 
edition, I fear he will be unpleasantly surprised, and suffer the fate 
of those who proclaim a creed or a crusade in advance of accepted 
opinion. It seems ungracious to say sO much, but really the pointed- 
out objection to the 8th edition, that it was ahead of any Flora, is 
August 18,5. 
