124 - THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
years, renewed its existence in 1896, and has since made steady, if 
not precisely rapid, progress. A comparison of the present with 
any of the earlier volumes of the Flora—which was begun in 1859 
—shows how greatly extended our knowledge of South African 
botany has become, and suggests the hope that steps are bemg 
taken to bring out a new edition of those earlier instalments, which 
indeed have long been inadequate as anything like a presentment 
of the flora as we now know it. That the supply of novelties 1s far 
from exhausted has been shown by the contributions which appear 
from time to time in this Journal, in which, for example, ten out 
of the fifty-one species of Ipomea enumerated in the Flora have 
been described by Dr. Rendle within the last three years. We note, 
too, that this fourth volume has so far exceeded the estimated space 
that it has been issued in two independently paged sections—a 
method which, however necessary, is likely to prove a fertile source 
of misquotation. 
In the present instalment we have the Hydrophyllacea, Boragine@, 
and Solanaceae, by Mr. C. H. Wright, who, in conjunction wit 
J. G. Baker, ig also responsible for the Convolvulacee ; and the be- 
ginning of the Scrophulariacea, by Mr. W. P. Hiern, who, at the 
request of the present editor of the Flora, undertook and completed 
the MS. about thirty years ago—in 1874-5, to be precise—in the 
view of what was supposed to be a then impending publication. 
ne or two points present themselves for consideration in ¢on- 
nection with the last-named monograph. Mr. Hiern, so far as we 
ow, is the first of the botanists employed on the work to make 
use of the herbaria in the Sloane collection—among them those of 
Oldenland and Kiggelaar, and to quote the synonyms of Petiver and 
urman. The Sloane collections are rich in material, and it woul 
not be difficult for other workers to follow the example of Mr. Hiern 
in consulting them. A note by the editor on p. 189—so far as we are 
aware, the first by which he has enriched the work—suggests certain 
difficulties with regard to future citation which may as well be stated. 
The note in question rans—‘ Mr. Hiern would prefer to transpose the 
generic names Hemimeris and Diascia, and gives hig reasons for this 
course in Journ. Bot. 1901, 103.—W. T. T.-D.” This expression of 
subjunctive preference hardly conveys what has taken place. We 
understand that Mr. Hiern in his MS. actually made this trans 
position, in accordance with the position established in his paper 
referred to; but that the editor of the Flora, in his wisdom, set 
aside the names given by the author of the monograph and substi- 
tuted others presumably in accordance with his own view, thous, 
this is nowhere stated. Asa result, fifteen species of Diascia and 
one of Hemimeris are attributed to ‘‘ Hiern,” although he in 00 
case so named them; the matter being further complicated by the 
citation of  Hemimeris elegans Hiern” (as a synonym under ‘* Diascia 
elegans Hiern”)—a name which the supposed author did not give, 
and of which he does not approve. How are such names 60 
quoted? We can hardly be right to attribute them to an author 
who never employed them; and the editor does not claim them. 
In the case of a full citation, perhaps “ Hiern ex W. T. T.-D [yer] 
