62 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
It would seem that, should the name have to be cited as that of a 
omission of any reference to Don’s notes is the more remark- 
able in that Mr. Druce, in the preface to his at speaks of having 
consulted the Museum collections, sath eles (p- Ae to the preser- 
vation therein of many of Don’s original speci 
Mr. Druce’s comments upon H. C. Waton S pi May, of Don 
appear to us at times to be somewhat eae severe. For example, 
under Juncus tenuis, he writes: “* Mr. Watson deliberately ignored 
r. David Don’s ¢ 
also overlooked by the other critics of Don’s record. ° The only 
‘* confirmation ” by D. Don is the affixing of his name to the record 
MSS. ine 
* spat sak by the that ‘‘D.” is a misprint for “G.” This view is 
e fact that in the seventh edition of the British 
Wee a (1855), by Hooker and Arnott, in which the account of J. 
piers is rewritten, “G. Don ” is substituted oa # DD: Don.’* Relat! 
F aautiaeneas it seems hardly fair to say that D. D 
= * deliberately ignored ” by Watson; Mr. Druce himself falls sly : 
similar error in the opposite direction when he quotes as if of 
independent sathiieity Gardiner’s Flora of Forfarshire, omitting 
u 
0 ; but nearly six lines of type intervene 
between the nam e and ae authori rity; J. tenuis is cited by Hooker 
as of Pursh—the “‘ D. Don a ” belongs to J. gracilis 
_ it will be seen from the instances given that Mr. Druce’s work 
is open to criticism in ea but this does not detract from its 
i | 
not aurewm, near a “mill in Berkshire, but at present I have 
ie ee veranda ©: 
alpestris: ‘ After Don’s precise statement, it appears very difficult 
to believe he was in error. Itm ust be remember 
* This, as Prof. Balfour shows in a footnote, requires q qualification ; one of 
Graham’s botanical ‘expeditions to Clova started ‘‘ about the end of April.” 
