28 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



application, which we commend to the notice of others who take 

 up the work. The first is that quotations should be verified: where 

 this is not possible, it should be stated. Mr. Druce, for example, 

 relies far too much upon Richter's Plants Europea — a most useful 

 compendium of synonyms, so far as the names go, but extra- 

 ordinarily inaccurate in the matter of citations and dates. Polk 

 never seem to realize that identity in blundering almost always 

 betrays the source of the blunder. Thus Mr* Druce cites "Mibora 

 minima Desv., Fl. d'Anj. 46, 1827 " ; this he takes bodily from 

 Eichter (the Index Kewensis has a similar reference, but without the 

 date), but in this case title, page, and date are wrong, as any one 

 can see who will take the trouble to look the matter up— the refer- 

 ence is to the Observations sur les plantes ties environs d' Angers, p. 45, 



published at Angers and Paris in 1818. It may be said that those 

 who have not access to a first-rate botanical library cannot check 

 references satisfactorily ; but is there any reason why such folk 

 should enter on the tangled path of synonymy? Moreover Mr. 

 Druce is a man of leisure, and the libraries of London are easy 

 of access. 



Again, the botanical side of the work of correction must not be 

 neglected. On the faith of Richter's synonymy, Mr. Druce invents 

 a new combination — Festuca membranacea — for the plant which is 

 generally known as F. nniglumis Soland. ; but Duval-Jouve (in 

 Rev. Sci. Nat. ii. 34 (1880)) makes it clear that, whatever Stfi 

 membranacea of Linnaeus may have been, it is not synonymous with 

 F. nniglumis. Nor do we think Hordeum bulbosum L., by which 

 Mr. Druce would replace H. secalinum Schreb., is a synonym of that 

 plant. 



We would enter a protest against the practice which seems creep- 

 ing in of quoting the Index Kewensis as if it were a botanical author- 

 ity. The absence of any introduction to that invaluable work is to 

 some extent accountable for the apparent misunderstanding as 

 to its object, which is that of an index and nothing more ; the 

 entries— £. g. " Habenaria chlorolenca Ridl. — bifolia " — do not 

 imply that Mr. Jackson has critically investigated the botany of the 

 matter, but only that some recognized authority — a monographer 

 or other — has made the reductiou. Mr. Druce cites names 

 e.g. Galeopsis ochroieuca—n.s "Lam., Ency. ii. 600, 1780 and Index 

 Hew/' ; but the addition of the Index adds nothing to the history of 

 the plant or to the value of the citation. 



It may be added here that a list of British species, drawn up M 

 accordance with the new Laws by Dr. Eendle and Mr. Britten, will 

 be published very shortly by the Trustees of the British Museum* 

 This will be so arranged as to show the synonymy in Messrs. 

 Groves's edition of Babington's Manual, in Hooker's Student's Flora* 

 and in Bentham's Handbook. It will be a satisfaction to many to 

 know that in this the new combinations necessitated by the Laws 

 will be very few, the changes from the more accepted nomenclature 

 being for the most part a return to that which was familiar twenty 

 or thirty years back, before the recognition of the earliest name 

 under the genus had become general. 





