20 * FIRST RECORDS OP BRITISH FLOWERING PLANTS. 





earlier notices may, of course, be found, but these have been dis- 

 regarded for the present purpose, and all researches limited as 

 above mentioned. 



As to the species included in the list, no attempt has been made 

 to distinguish precisely between indigenous and introduced plants ; 

 but the last edition of the London Catalogue has been taken as a 

 basis, and the earliest record has been sought of each separately 

 numbered species, but excluding (1) the evidently introduced 

 plants printed in italics, (2) those only found in "the Channel 

 Islands, which cannot properly be considered British: In the 

 •critical genera— Rubus, Hieracium, and SalLc—a, selection only of 

 generally recognised forms has been given. 



A difficult matter to decide in many cases has been — What is a 

 sufficient first record ? a plant being often vaguely mentioned in an 

 old Herbal without locality or any clear indication that it was 

 known to the writer as British. It has been found impracticable 

 to lay down any precise rule in such cases, but where the plant 

 under consideration is a common one and well known to be in- 

 digenous, a mere reference to it by any name which can be identi- 

 fied has been accepted as a sufficient record, unless there appeared 

 some reason to doubt whether the writer knew it as British. For 

 example, in searching for a first record of Anemone nemomsa we find 

 the plant pretty clearly referred to by Turner in his Hirbal as a 

 kind of Ranunculus ; there is no evidence in the description that 

 he laiew it as a British plant, but there can be no reason to doubt 

 it. The Herbal contains a good figure of the plant, and Turner 

 sa\s it grows M in woddes and shaddish places in April." This is 

 enough. In other cases, of course, greater care has been taken to 

 obtain a record containing some internal evidence that the plant 

 was known to the writer as British ; and in some instances where the 

 earliest record is unsatisfactory but cannot be altogether rejected, a 

 second later and more satisfactory one has been added. 



In this work I cannot hope to have attained anything like com- 

 pleteness. It has been carried on for the most part at a distance 

 from auy extensive botanical library, and corrections, which, it is 

 feared, will be numerous, are invited from all interested in the 

 subject. 



I have obtained some assistance from a MS. by the late Dr. 

 Pulteney in the Botanical Department of the British Museum, 

 containing short references to the early notices of British plants 

 known in his day : but in many cases the references are not to 

 actual first records, and in other respects the information afforded 

 is not always satisfactory. 



Throughout the work I have received the kind encouragement 

 and assistance of the Editor of this Journal, without which, indeed, 

 it would not have been undertaken at all. I am also greatly 

 indebted to Mr. Daydon Jackson, Mr. G. S. Boulger, and Mr. F. 

 C. S. Boper for the loan of books and other assistance. 



The principal works referred to, with the abbreviations used, 

 are enumerated below: other books, occasionally quoted, will be 

 sufficiently indicated where cited. 



