COMITAL CENSUS NUMBERS 819 
of my figures. Of course I do not say that every record in Top. 
Bot. or its Supplement is correct; we know that many are in- 
accurate or doubtful, but for these, when known to me, I have 
made due allowance, and the records which are in doubt are in 
most cases, where space allowed, put in brackets. 
t would be almost impossible for lists compiled independently 
ey 4 
which I queried at 20, were over-estimated, what about the num- 
bers in Top. Bot. and its Supplement by Bennett? F’. confusa has 
24 counties (using this word as including vice-counties) in the 
former work, and Bennett adds 32 = 56; F. muralis in Top. Bot. 
has 18, and Bennett gives 12 others = 30, these being reduced in 
Lond. Cat. to 31 and 6 respectively! This example may show 
how the notions of critical species vary from time to time, while 
included under this name J’. majus, while he kept T'. montanum 
distinct ; whereas I keep majus distinct, uniting montanwm with 
T. minus L. agg. This being a critical plant, I only quoted the 
where considerable divergence may be caused. . 
the reader will add the number of the county records in 
Bennett’s Additions to those already recorded in Top. Bot. he will 
often find the result different from the number in Lond, Cat., 
even if the duplication of the records, which is by no means un- 
common, be allowed for. Asan instance may be cited Ranunculus 
Lingua. Top. Bot. has 77 (five of these I delete as queried, 2. e. 
Devon N., Som. §., Middlesex, Notts, and Kirkeudbright), leaving 
72. Bennett gives eight additions, but 25. Suffolk E., 72. Dumfries, 
ling ott. 
Caithness (Hb. Druce, plentiful near Loch Scarmelett!) = 
Space will not allow of giving many instances, although they 
Polygala vulgaris | Myrioph. alterniflorum Carum verticillatum 
Top. Bot. 35 57 19 
Bennet, 62 -.. . 28 | 5 
Add "16 | o 3 
(L. C. 83) 103 —6=97 |(L. C. 80) 91 (L.C. 20) 27 
2B2 
