® 
NOTICES OF BOOKS. 27 
maritimus (as has already been ee in this Journal for 1881, 
p ih os pe graveolens,—the last a new county record.— 
G. C. D 
Notices of Books. 
Report on the Progress and Condition of the Royal Gardens at Kew 
during the year = By Sir J. D. Hooxzr, Director. London: 
Clowes [Dec.] 188 
As is always the case, the Kew aaa a a — of 
interesting and useful matter; and we give the eo pub- 
lisher in order that those who wish to feat more > of its soriidattl 
than our limited space will enable us to extract may know where to 
obtain the full text. The résumé of the progress of applied botany 
contained in its pages is, so far as we know, the only thing of its 
kind ; and although its practical usefulness may be a little er 
by the late date of its publication, it is still sitiapecedblarts 
economic botanist. A list of the exotic economic an stediadaal 
plants cultivated under glass at Kew is appended ; this will be very 
useful to those who wish to know which of such plants can be seen 
at Kew in a living state, and might — be reprinted for distribution 
or added to the Guide to the Garden 
a Journal = 1881 (p. 3 81) t we referred to the publication - 
of no nuda in the Kew Report for 1880, and expressed an 
opinion veka ano f pabuention was “very reprehensible.” a Trimen 
(Journ. Bot., 1881, p. 289) demurred to this expression, stating 
that the names in question represented % as results of herd work 
at a troublesome set of plants” . and that “‘ no writer on the 
rubber-yielding species of Landolphia and Willughbeia could be 
justified in neglec owe them.” The Report now before us furnishes 
- curious comment upon this justification. Two of the new rubber- 
yielding plants were named (but not described) in the = aie —— 
as Chilocarpus flavescens and Willughbeia Burbidgei. 
told (Kew Report for 1881, p. 48) that th e former ‘ icon nae rv 
a true W; ie i a and will find its place in the Flora {of British 
ce as W. flavescens ; while the latter " silage out after ¢ ee 
par with auth raed sce OF -W fama, BL . .%<:s 
identical with this species.’’* If our contention ‘that the 1880 sagiel 
ave no claim to ecko or adoption by future workers ’’ be 
‘lowed. the erroneous determinations may pass unnoticed ; but if 
Dr. Trimen’s view be adopted, botanical nomenclature will be 
The identifications here sndioated > carried out in part ix. of a Flora 
of British India,’ which has cc me to oe nce the above remarks were written. 
But it is to be noted mrt while » the former is cited as “ W. Burbidge, Dyer in 
p. 1 4, 46,” he latter is anon as “ Chiloca — Kew 
ew : ; 
Gard. Report, 1880, ane no ane 8 roe appended to the specific n 
we have before pointed out (Journ. Bot. 1882, p. 289, foot-note) no indication of 
the dual authorship of the Kew i for 1880 is to be found in its pages—a 
nomina n 
as authoritative. We note n passing t that oseph ker, in the ——_ 
uniformly gc leo a new eet. Witoaptbae ie me genus in question 
