‘““AMATEUR NOMENCLATURE” 261 
Schenus nigricans L. 9. Near Winscombe, 1900, W. F. Miller : 
a second station for Somerset. 
arexz pendula L. 2. Kilve; between Combwich and Stoke 
Courey.—C. riparia Curt. a Loxton. 
*Agrostis nigra With. . Roadsides near ~ sai Ror 3. 
eschampsia setacea Richter. Though not edible to be 
found on the western noes this species was recorded by me last 
year in error from between E. Anstey and Brushford. The e plant 
referred to it was craiten ast flower, and greatly resembled it in 
foliage. Mr. Arthur Bennett has Shane out that the inflorescence 
is that of an Agrostis, and considers it to be a variety of A. weir 
Sibth. (vulgaris With.), a grass usually found in dry d, 
whereas this was in wet bogs, associated with Delophcnelle 
a, atte bn It deserves further study at the Loe season, 
lyceria  dithe a Bréb. 3. W. Monkton; ; oxy local. — 
G. aquatica Wahlb. 3, nate Maunsel and Athelney.—G. mari- 
tama Mert. & Koch. phill. 
Festuca bromoides L. ctroide Roth). 2. Dodington, H. Corder. 
—F. foegyse Huds. 9. Uphill. 
omus. secalinus L. 5. Waste ground, Bridgwater, H. S. 
Thsinpses 
Nardus stricta L. 2. Will's Neck, H. S. Thompson 
Elymus arenarius L. 9. In sand, between the Weston Espla- 
nade and Brean Down, 1898, Miss Mules (note in Murray's copy). 
It seems to bids e disappeared, perhaps only for a time. 
Blechnum Spicant With. 2, 3. Holford, H S. Thompson. 
Asplenium marinum L. 2. Near Minehead. 
Polystichum angulare Presl. 3. Broomfield. 
Chara fragilis Desy. 3. Ditches on Northmoor, near Maunsel, 
in profusion. 8. Sha om Rev. G. RB. Bullock-Webster.—C. his- 
pida. 5. Near Othery, dit 
*Toly ella glomerata Le Pity Canon Bullock-Webster dis- 
covered this interesting addition e the flora of Somerset sparingly 
in a ditch on King’s Sedgemoor, near Othery, May, 1899. 
“AMATEUR NOMENCLATURE.” 
By Aurrep J. Ewart, D.Sc., F.L.S. 
(Professor of Botany, University of Melbourne.) 
in your Journal for Dec. 1908 an article on “ Amateur 
No irre ” which calls for explanation and reply. As I 
understand it, plants are given names for the convenience of those 
interested in them, whether from a scientific or Smarr soos aspect, 
under which latter head a large non-botanical section of the general 
public is included. From their point of view ‘twenty- -five years’ 
undisputed use should be sufficient to make a name valid, pro- 
vided it represented a good species and did not flagrantly violate 
