MANUAL OF BRITISH BOTANY 275 
descriptive terms need modification. For instance, Scabiosa colwm- 
baria is scarcely typically perennial,—* biennis vel perennans, vix 
perennis’ e the correct Latin Ames hy Are not the 
anthers lilac rather than yellow? On p. 226, J'ragupogon, like 
Leontodon which precedes it, sho nid be masculine, not neuter. Is 
T’. minor sufficiently distinct to be consider Speen separabie 
from T. pratensis; it i difficult to draw any line between the 
age, the anthers in the two forms do not seem to be different 
in colour; they are here given respectively as yellow and dark 
rown. 
n Linneus sat down to write Species Plantarum he still had 
shat convictions on details of form in nomenclature, and had 
e of working insured a minimum of subsequent errors. 
took the earliest peer aa ee 7 of correcting these in his next work, 
the second editio Fl, Suectea (1755), in which, moreover, we 
find an absence of pes. inal odditities, false concords, and _bi- 
lingual barbarisms. In the first large genus which was worked out, 
e em ns 
Veronic , WwW vidence of thes endatio hich . Linneus 
certainly intended should be adopted in future systematic works, 
though subsequent authors have as n th and though 
Richter’s interjected comments (Code: « Linnaanus) have drawn 
attention to beans V. tryphylios, hederefolia, and Anagallis-aquatica 
vely 9 eiphsile, hederifolia, and Anagallis ; also 
Callitriche palustris (1753) becomes C. autumnalis L., Fi. Suecica 
55). While on the subject of Veronica, it may be mentioned 
that V. serQigliifolia var. yr es GP) is antedated by V. 
serpyllifolia way a pi 1785), an oe V. can ppt, var. 
eximia Towns. (on 20) is sitedated by Via var. nana 
Poiret, Eneyels Meth, Bot - 541 (1808), as. as resent. writer 
has verified from specim: in Herb. Kew 
The late W. W. Newbould, to whom Babington was deeply i in- 
debted for woluahe portions of the critical material in the suc- 
cessive issues of his Manual, used to declare that every single line 
of Pfeiffer’s Nomenclator Botanicus pra d a monograph in minia- 
ture ; so do the apposite remarks of Messrs. Groves on every page of 
the new Babington indicate the possibilities of industrious research 
in field-botany. It is only the inelastic framework in which the 
material is set, — legacy of that incubus which Sir James Smith 
imposed — - a a hand upon. British Botany, which at 
tion to one another. Not that we have at present any cogent evi- 
