136 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
Mr. Arnold has taken no pains to keep himself au courant with the 
progress of our knowledge. The consequence of course is that some 
of the most interesting of Sussex plants find no place; Fumaria 
parviflora, Vicia gracilis, Peucedanum palustre, Galium anglicum, 
Cerastium pumilem, Utricularia connie are only a few of the addi- 
ions made in the papers indica he same neglect mars or 
modifies the author's Sonne! g., Bartsia viscosa does not, as 
Bot. 1902, 222); Silene noctiflora is certainly not extinct (Journ. 
Bot. ste Say 
The e, indeed, abundant indications that Mr. Arnold was 
not scopenly qualified for his task. For example, he begins his 
introduction by referring to Gerard’s Herball as published i in 1688; 
a nil : 
of a plant; and, in a curious saidlibiee writes of Borrer, ‘* As an 
authority on the Rubi, Rose and Salices, the most difficult genera 
in our flora, he ranks among the highest.” Misprints are numerous 
thro ougho out : we find ‘ ERaaxbaum’s speedwell (Veronica Baux- 
such names as ‘‘ Kirtz” for ‘“ Kiitz.,” «« Walton” for ‘*Wallroth,”’ 
“ Dilwyn ” for ‘ Dillwyn,” “ Schrs.”’ for ** Sebast.’ 
It would be easy to point out other inaccuracies—for — 
what is given as if one quotation from Gerard is from 
widely apart; Phyteuwma orbiculare occurs in Surrey ; 
italics isapplied. 
et 
oa 4 
2,0 
Pres 
a a series § 
disfigured by the numerous typographical cea one errors which at 
erase a deface it 
THE KEW Sciecuageend OF MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION.” 
y be 
» pending the publication of a complete bibliogeaphy of the 
Bulletin, to give some indication of the contents of thes 
The volume for 1900, which was announced in 1901 as ‘in 
a ” contains—so the cover tells us—* Nos. 157-168, 3 
a ~e be said that the result is adequate to the period of pre- 
‘pare ; the contents include an account of ‘* Botanical Museums 
