SURVEY AND RECORD OF WOOLWICH AND WEST KENT 279 
acumen reviewed [sic] the whole work from its inception to the 
last proof.” 
for most of the orders and genera no information is gi is 
1 i to be regretted, as it is surely not required in a local non- 
descriptive list ; but i en in one case, why not in another? 
”) is preceded by “a”; this 
occurs all through the book, but we find no explanation of it 
among the * Abbreviations and Contributors ”—a curious heading 
scope of the book. Thus, opening at random at p. 98, we begin 
with Hippophe (misspelt Hippophe) rhamnoides, which we are 
1 lant found in Kent, but not in our district.” 
Then why insert it? The next is Peplis portula—« capital letters 
are not used in the spelling of specific names” (p. vii) (one 
wonders why), followed by a description (the only one on the 
age)—‘* weak herbs [sic] growing in damp places, . . . “no 
ords.”’ 
as well as J. béflora on the banks of the Ravensbourne. Mimulus 
e 
l 
‘‘Musk,” as here stated; and the suggestion under Campanula 
Trachelium, the original “Canterbury Bell,” that “perhaps the 
pilgrims had a superstitious regard for the plant, and introduced 
its seed along the route ” (p. 138) is ridiculously improbable. 
So we might continue; but cui bono the work was 
announced—if we are correct in identifying it with the proposed 
