289 
* GILBERT WHITE’S SELBORNE PLANTS. 
By tue Eprror, - 
Yet at the time we did not think his Letter xli to Barrington, 
dealing with the “more rare” plants of Selborne, entitled his name 
to inclusion, although we certainly admitted other names who had no 
greater claim than such a letter gives. We had not then noted that 
Mr. Bell, in his edition of Selborne (ii. 869: 1877), said that he 
possessed a catalogue of Selborne plants ‘in the handwriting of 
Gilbert White,” which he embodied in the list which he gave. 
B indness of the Rev. Canon Gordon, its fortunate 
possessor, I have lately seen a copy of Hudson’s Flora Anglica 
(1762), which shows conclusively that White was well acquainted 
with the plants of his locality. The book has White’s autograph 
on the flyleaf, with the date 1765. Facing the title is the follow- 
ing note in White’s hand: “The plants marked thus x have all 
ampton.” He evidently used the book a great deal, for there are 
several corrections of references, figures, &c., by him, which are 
i t 
conglomeratus (p. 129); an entry of Blackstonia on p. 88—‘ Gen- 
tiana corollis octofidis, foliis perfoliatis: vid. p. 146’’; and the 
addition to Prunus Aviwm of the names “ vulg. mery: Fr. merise,” 
The volume afterwards came into the possession of “'T, 
Rutger, Clowance,” who em loyed it as White had done, indi- 
The enumeration contains 489 species, and is not therefore ex- 
haustive, although it must be remembered that in 1762 our list was 
Pp. 
White’s authority, raising the number to 440. I think it may be 
of interest to print this list, and in so doing I have implicitly 
followed Hudson’s order and nomenclature. Most of the names 
d 
will be easily recognised. 
Callitriche verna Veronica Beccabunga 
Ligustrum vulgare chamedrys 
Veronica officinalis arvensis 
serpyllifolia agrestis 
JournaL or Botany.—Von. 81, [Ocr. 1898.] U 
