A FLORA OF HERTFORDSHIRE. 59 



this and other reasons render it a matter for satisfaction that the 

 work was taken up by Mr. Jackson in the autumn of 1885. 



There are many reasons which render it difficult to criticise the 

 volume now before us. Mr. Jackson has conscientiously followed 

 Mr. Pryor s MS. ; but this was in many cases incomplete, while in 

 others localities were given with a fullness and detail which, 

 although representing the intentions of the author at the time they 

 were committed to paper, would, there is reason to think, have been 

 considerably modified before printing. Considering the small 

 extent of the county, it may fairly be questioned whether the 

 localities for the commoner species need have been given at such 

 length. Papaver Argemone, for example, occupies a whole page ; so 

 does Armaria leptoclados ; Helianthemum Chama>ci$tus has nearly two 

 pages devoted to it ; the Eesedas have nearly three pages between 

 them. Still more open to criticism is the prominence given to 

 such annual casuals as Papaver somniferwn and Cameiina satira ; and 

 it is to be regretted that such plants as Silene nutans (one or two 

 plants on a garden wall), and 8> conica ("three plants in the middle 

 of a fifty-acre field"), should be admitted to the honours of thick 

 type, numbered as part of the native flora of the county, and 

 included in the "tabular statement" of distribution. Other 

 species, as it seems to me, should have been referred to incidentally 

 rather than as actually forming part of the Flora, on the ground of 

 needing verification. Such are Pyrola rotundi folia, — surely a mistake 

 for P. minor, — Malaxis pahidosa (on Parkinson's authority only), 

 and Cephalanthera ensifolia (only given in Gibson's Camden). 



As Mr. Jackson remarks in his Preface, it is matter for sincere 

 regret that Mr. Pry or did not live to complete his work. It would, 

 under his hands, have taken rank with Mr. Briggs's ■ Flora of 

 Plymouth,' in the critical notes with which the author would have 

 enriched it. Unfortunately, they were hardly ever committed to 

 paper, although carefully stored up in Mr. Pryor's accurate mind. 

 In some cases his views were published, as, for example, on 

 Epipactis lati folia (Journ. Bot. 1881, 71), Bobart's green Scrophu- 

 laria (Id. 1877, p. 238), and the Hertfordshire Carices (Id. 1876, 

 365) ; and an editorial note calling attention to these would have 

 been desirable. He had made a special study of some plants, such 

 as the Poppies and Water Buttercups, and had hoped to publish 

 notes on these in his book. A careful collation of Mr. Pryor's 

 published papers in this Journal with the Flora would probably 

 result in many corrections and additions : thus, Typka angwtifolia 

 is recorded for Hatfield (Journ. Bot. 1874, 22), which seems to 

 answer the question raised at p. 509 of the Flora, and removes it 

 from the list of plants (p. xxxiii.) peculiar to the Thame district. 



In the main, however, the work has been carried out as the 

 author would have wished, Among its distinctive features are the 

 arrangements and naming according to Nyman, with such excep- 

 tions as Mr. Jackson believes Mr. Pryor would have made; the 

 reference following the name of each genus and species to the place 

 (I think Mr. Pryor meant also to have added the date) of publica- 

 tion ; and an index of species as well as of genera. For the last 



