KEW BULLETIN. 89 



i 



is the 



mysterious, not to say ungenerous, warning, M All Rights Reserved," 

 which occurs at the head of each number, or on the wrapper when 

 there is one, as has sometimes happened lately. What these 

 "fights" may be does not appear, and the threat may, for aught 

 we know, be as meaningless as "Trespassers will be prosecuted/' 

 Here, for example, is "Appendix 1, 1892,"— the Bulletin has various 

 appendices, to which are relegated " information of a purely formal 

 kind," — which is entirely occupied with a list of the seeds matured 

 at Kew during 1891. What "rights" are likely to be infringed in 

 this case ? Had a copyright been claimed for the amusing 

 enumeration for 1885, we could more easily have understood it. 



Another peculiarity is in the absence of any editor's name. 

 Whether Dr. Dyer* or Mr. Morris acts in this capacity, we do not 

 know — probably the former, as Director of Kew ; but surely this 

 should be stated? The continuous numbering of the articles in 

 roinan figures also strikes us as odd. 



The more especially botanical aspect of the Bulletin began last 

 August, when Mr. Eolfe published a decade of new Orchids. In 

 the number dated October and November, 1891, but really issued 

 in January of this year, is a list of the plants collected by Dr. 

 Brown Lester on the Gambia Delimitation Commission. In this 

 we find Mr. Baker's name attached to a "nomen nudum" to 

 which we decline to give further publicity. The publication of 

 nomina ?iuda, which of course has no claim to recognition,! is an 

 old offence at Kew ; we wonder by what plea of " convenience " the 

 "Kew botanists" (to quote Mr. Hemsley's phrase) justify this 



* We note, by the way, that, both here and in the Annals, this gentleman 

 has adopted the long-threatened hyphen, and writes his name "Thiselton- 

 Dyer " ; and that there are indications that this example will be followed by 

 others. Among our contributors will be found many who now print in full 

 their second name, which was at one time only indicated by a modest initial ; 

 and the insertion of the hyphen will probably be merely a question of time. 

 Dr. Dyer himself began as " W. T. T. Dyer." May we, before it is too late, 

 point out that, in spite of Dr. Dyer's sanction and the charms of fashion, such 

 a proceeding is likely to produce serious inconvenience? The owner of such a 

 name will have to be indexed under each part of it, or it will be difficult for 

 after ages to trace his continuity; and how will it work in the case of new 

 species? Are we to print the new combination in full? How are future 

 generations to identify the old " Dyer " with the new u Thiselton-Dyer " ? and 

 how is the latter to be abbreviated ? We should be sorry to deprive anyone of 

 such happiness as can be afforded by a hyphen, but if our contributors generally 

 follow the fashion, and there is no reason why they should not, we shall have 

 to enlarge our index. Our friend Mr. Hemsley has rapidly progressed through 

 the three stages in newspaper literature ; but at present the combination Botting- 

 Hemsley has not, we believe, received his sanction. May we hope that he will 

 withhold it, in the interests of " convenience"— a pi 



Sea to which he of all men 



should not be deaf— and of common sense 1 

 + Thi'c ic fnr+.nnatp.. as future writers 



me osieiibiuie uaie ui puuui/OMuu, aj.^^^ — — — -,, .*— 



1892. Similarly, Mr. Ridley's Utricularia bryophila appeared in the Annate of 

 Botany under the date of Nov. 1888, but this was not really published until 

 Jan. 1889. In cases of irregular publication, the plan adopted in the Journal of 

 the Linnean Society— of placing the date of each part on the back of the title- 

 page — should be followed. 



