SHORT NOTE 137 
in France,” as they appeared in 1899; a report of the Botanic 
Garden, Durban, written in 1883; notices of botanists who died in 
1900, of plants presented to the Kew Herbarium in 1899, ‘te of 
the number of visitors to Kew Gardens durin ng that year; and 
two prefaces by the late Director. Partariint montes, seasenlier 
ridiculus mus, 
The long-delayed conclusion of the sg ar for 1901—* Nos. 
178-180, October-December ’—contains an account of — 
hypogaea a by Mr. Burkill and a few miscellaneous notes; nearly tw 
pages are occupied by an account of the contents of the Botentcel 
Magazine for September-November of that year. The title-page is 
misdated 1901, and there is nothing to indicate the real date of 
publication except the easily- overlooked Eisepery Office imprint 
on the = page of the text. This costs sixpenc 
‘No. 2, 1905,” is entirely devoted to an ah ie “ Botanical 
Survey of the Em ire,” which is really an account genesis 
and development of the Colonial Floras issued in connection with the 
R Gardens, and of the official correspondence relating thereto. 
Our assumption (p. 80) that the Bulletin actually issued in 
January, 6, was mindated 1905, however natura , was, we find, 
erroneous; for now we have “No. 1, 1906,” which once more 
resumes the publication “of papers of botanical importance, to which 
indeed it is entirely devoted. The ‘‘ Decades Kewenses” and 
‘* Diagnoses Africans ”’ ce various botanists associated ae Kew, 
and a decade of new orchids by Mr. Rolfe, make this number a 
Actinidia curvidens Dum.—had already appeared as A. callosa 
var. Henryt Maxim. (Act. Hort Darton: xi. 86), a name which should 
at least have been cited as & n We note that the date of 
collection is in no cas 
How far the pres of issues can be said to justify the 
statement of the late Dircosdtl that oe corer is ‘a continuous 
record of Kew Hote in all its aspects’ must of course be matter of 
opinion ; but we would suggest to the authorities an desirability 
of indicating the responsible editor of the publication 
SHORT NOTE. 
Sacina auprva.—In Mr. Britten’s kind review of my work on 
George Don he comments on my omission of the remarks relating 
i i . Garry 
was written before they appeared, or I should certainly have done 
so. Mr. Britten also says that the alpine Sagina should stand as 
