172 EEMARKS ON BOTANICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY. 



294, between Selig and Semmedi. This omission was apparently 

 noticed during the printing, and led to these three being also 

 given in the addenda (ii. 10636-8). 



To conclude the very unpleasant task of fault-finding, I must 

 record my vigorous protest against the manner in which Pritzel 

 has altered the spelling of the Christian names of many of the 

 writers. The most flagrant instance of this unwarrantable liberty, 

 I think, will be found in Carl Anton Meyer; both in Latin and 

 German he seems invariably to have spelt his name with a C, yet 

 Pritzel chooses to give him a K, the consequence being that this 

 author is driven out of his rightful position in the alphabet, where 

 he should be placed third amongst the Meyers, to the tenth place, 

 so rendering his productions liable to be overlooked. The absurdity 

 is immensely heightened hy the quotation of the well known 

 initials in more than one place, <?.//., Smielowsky, Timothem, . . 

 (Smielowskia, C. A. M.), p. 299. According to the main entries 

 of author's names in Pritzel, these initials, C. A. M., will only 

 fit Charles Ain/unte Moisand, in whose 'Flore Nantaise' (ii. 6355) 

 we might vainly seek for the genus Smielowskia. 



Thus far I have pointed out the most noteworthy deficiencies 

 in our standard botanical bibliography ; I now proceed to indicate 

 what appear to me requisites in any future similar undertaking. 



In the first place, what should be included? Besides the 

 various systematic, descriptive, and physiological books, about 

 which no doubt can exist, there must remain a very large 

 number of productions which can be, as it were, only admitted 

 on sufferance, or rejected with some misgiving. From the classics 

 of the science, there is a gradual descent to the veriest trash; 

 from indispensable authorship to utterly worthless effusions. 

 It would be found almost impossible to draw up rigid rules of 

 inclusion and exclusion which would work satisfactorily, without 

 judging each doubtful case on its own merits. I think that every 

 publication which has for its object the diffusion of knowledge 

 about plants, in structure, affinities, and functions, apart from 

 J? y /i ™ ian or cultural consideration, must be included; 

 tlie difficulties only begin when we take in hand the outlying 

 divisions, such as elementary or economic botany, and travels. 

 As l Have said before, each book must be separately judged, 

 but I would strongly urge that as many as can fairly be included, 

 BAOuia be, lor over-inclusion is far more readily pardoned than 

 omissions, and a complete bibliography should clearly err on 

 mat side. It will be for the future bibliographer to choose his own 

 method of work, but lie will act discreetly by omitting all purely 

 agricultural, gardening, chemical, and philological treatises, 

 confmmg himself to Botany simply; he will find ample employ- 

 ment lor his powers within the limits thus circumscribed. 



1 Have taken for granted that nothing will be catalogued which 



as no chum to be treated as an independent publication. An 



important point now rises for settlement: what constitutes a 



separate work ? A bona Me reprint from any periodical or 



tiansactions, which has been specially set up in type, is admittedly 



