77 
A NEW FLORA OF SURREY. 
By W. H. Bersy. 
THE peri mon te twenty hey that has elapsed since the 
publication of Brewer’s ‘Flora of Surrey,’ and the advance that 
as been made since : 1868 in ee study of botany, both as regards 
plant distribution and the better understanding and separation 
of allied forms, have created a desire for a new flora of the county, 
approximating more closely to our present knowledge, besides 
including old records which are Joi ~ hy bot in the work above 
alluded to, and giving an of the distribution 
of the common plants; due param being ales paid to the history 
of the progress of botanical investigation in the county. e 
distinct effort in this direction was made by Mr. Arthur Bennett, 
who some vars since published a list of plants eheeus from Surrey, 
but found in one or more of the adjacent counties; at the same 
time eras! information. Since then Mr. pie tt has found 
himself unable, from want of a to continue the work which, at 
has accordin ly been adopted. strong desire was felt to avoid, 
if possible, a division of the chalk range from east to west, and to 
st s 8, 
divided into subdistricts. This gabateie sion was imperative in the 
latter case, the two Arun ee ee being naturally separated by 
the eee of the River 
eatly indebted to Nr. Boulger for his most valuable 
ia selene in devising and vone out the # erent districts, 
which, in this county, present unusual difficultie 
In the pth brief description ge main peer has been to 
give such information as will enable anyone to trace on a good map 
the various dhetrioke and subdistricts, which are as follows :— 
lack 
W Upp: 
5. Lower Mole. 6. North-east Streams; a. "Hoge’s Mil sige 
os Beverley Brook, 6. Wandle and Metropolitan Streams. 7. 
E 
