260 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



last. It was gro^Ying, in fair quantity, with F. Borm and F. 

 officinalis in a wheat-field. — Eichard F. Towndrow. 



A Correction (p. 225, footnote t). — Dr. Daydon Jackson points 

 out that it was Dillenius who amplified the description in Eay's 

 Synopsis, ed. 3, and altered the naming ; the last sentence should 

 therefore run: "Dillenius, however, in the third edition of E. Syn. 

 Stirp. Brit. p. 326 (1724) adopts," etc. It will be noted that the 

 page and date are also corrected. 



BEVIEWS. 



Prodrovms FlorcB Britannic ce. Part 9, comprising the fourteen 

 Famihes included in the four Orders of Ehamnales, Grui- 

 nales, Hippocastanales, and Tricoccales. By Frederic N. 

 Williams. 8vo, pp. 477-532. Stutter, Brentford, March, 

 1912. Price 2s. M. 

 The ninth part of Mr. Wilhams's Prodronius contains the 

 numerous small orders of Choripetalse ; these are treated in the 

 individual manner characteristic of Mr. Williams's work, which, 

 while adding to its interest, renders it difficult to discover the 

 general principles on which he proceeds. An example of what 

 we mean will be found if the very elaborate treatment of Calli- 

 triche in the present issue be compared with the cavalier method 

 applied to 2Ientha in an earlier part. In the admission or rejec- 

 tion of species, again, he is difficult to follow ; the present part 

 includes the Horse-chestnut, on the ground that it "is such a 

 conspicuous feature of the tree vegetation in many parts of the 

 country th? ^ it can scarcely be omitted from our account of British 

 plants." imjjatiens hiflora and I. ijarviflora are included, but the 

 equally well-established I. glanclulifera (see Journ. Bot. 1900, 87, 

 278 ; 1901, 187) finds no place ; neither Oxalis corniculata nor 

 0. stricta are so much as mentioned, though the former has 

 certainly been at least naturalized in the West of England for 

 considerably more than a century (see Jom-n. Bot. 1900, 31). 



Mr. Wilhams's conclusions, whether as to plants or nomen- 

 clature, are not likely to pass unchallenged ; the former are indeed, 

 as Mr. Bennett's note on Polygala vulgaris var. grancliflora in our 

 last issue (p. 229) shows, are already under criticism ; and a paper 

 in our present issue shows good reason for not accepting his 

 proposed substitution of Linum hisjjanictim Mill, for L. angusti- 

 folium Huds. Nor is his style always conducive to clearness : 

 thus, of a plant which he places (p. 522) with the Polygala 

 mentioned above, he says, " Haussknecht seems to have over- 

 looked the specimens, as they appear afterwards as the type for 

 P. vulgaris var. pindicola of the same gathering " ; this seems to 

 us to indicate that Haussknecht considered the specimens in 

 question distinct from var. grandiflora, in which case he would 

 naturally not refer to them under that plant. 



An example of the different value set by different botanists on 

 thQ same plant is afforded in the case of the form of Bhammis 



