BRITISH PLANT LISTS 125 
Vienna Rules, although “against their own oy eae R sherri oot 
For F sectpieers genera, experts have been ¢ e late Rev. 
WwW n for Hieracia, the Rev. W. ot. aoc for Rubus, 
Mr. Athi ‘Bennett for Potamogeton, Major Wolley-Dod and the 
Rev. E. F. Linton for Rosa, Mr. Marshall for —, Cares and 
other genera, the Messrs. Groves for Batrachium a racee 
Mr. Hanbury’s share in the work for which he casts as sponso or 
is, apart from the preface, confined to the important function of 
taking the financial ar of the Catalogue, which however we are 
glad to know pays its w 
The nomenclature of the Catalogue has been thoroughly 
revised, and, allowing for the different limitation of genera 
in certain cases, is in the main in accord with the British 
Museum list. While on the whole it presents few points 
for criticism, there are certain entries which recall the Petrine 
comment on the Pauline Epistles—e. g. it is pa: to see 
two varieties of Radicula Nasturtiwm-aquaticum credited to 
‘Rendle & Brit that t i 
n,” seeing that the List sottiplled ese 
authors contains no varieties. The status of certain plants is 
als d:—* Italics denote a casual or only 
zling. We 
planted alien, apparently not yet naturalized. Obviously, the line 
between such and those marked with a * [which “implies that a 
plant is either most probably or certainly not prticincare fe Ane vite 
n 
rately, but each case has been carefully iénsidened.” " "Wee should 
atavalion 
on Box Hill” (Fl. Surrey 48, 1863) ; (onde sl which 
seems wild near some = the Welsh lakes; Galinsoga parviflora, 
* . 
hich date it practically filled a little copse n 
ahithe; On t he ae sini: we should nt agit have thought Af it Medicago 
sativa or Stachys annua “well esta 
that amecenists persicifolia and ese oe ane oer 
