312 THE JOUENAL OF BOTANY 



LINN^US'S 'FLOEA ANGLICA.' 



By James Britten, F.L.S. 



In the Scottish Botanical Bevieio for July, Mr. Druce has a 

 long paper dealing with this work. As it is mainly through the 

 reprint issued with this Journal for 1909 that the Flora Anglica 

 has attracted attention, it may be well to publish here a brief 

 comment on Mr. Druce's paper. This begins with the statement 

 that "recently suggestions have been made to use [it] as a help 

 in fixing the determination of some of the more doubtful plants in 

 the Species Plantaruin." Mr. Druce does not give any reference 

 in support of this general statement, but a perusal of his paper 

 leads to the conclusion that the cases of Uhnus cami^estris and 

 Viola canina were in his mind. 



Mr. Druce begins by considering "what the Flora Anglica is." 

 It may be conceded that Linnaeus had "little or no critical know- 

 ledge" of the British flora, and that in identifying the plants in 

 Bay's Synopsis ed. 3 he made many mistakes—" most appalling 

 errors," according to Mr. Druce. This, and the fact that Linnseus 

 failed to determine the plants in the " Dubia " which he placed at 

 the end of the list, seem to Mr. Druce " sufficient reason to pre- 

 vent the Flora Anglica being worth serious consideration" and to 

 justify the charge of " unworthiness " ; moreover " there are over 

 three hundred plants unidentified or even alluded to by Linnaeus." 



Taking the last point first, it may be pointed out that the 

 matter which concerns us is not what Linnaeus omitted, but what 

 he did. Being a wise man, he confined himself, in the Flora 

 Anglica as in his other works, to such identifications as he 

 thought to be correct, leaving aside descriptions as to which he 

 was doubtful. His knowledge of British plants, as has already 

 been said, was not critical, and it is not to be wondered at that 

 he found in Eay's descriptions many to which he could not put a 

 name. Dillenius himself, who was certainly well acquainted with 

 our flora, gives at the end of the Synopsis an "indiculus plantarum 

 dubiarum" which contains 196 names (besides a similar list ex- 

 tracted from Lobel) excluded on various grounds from the body of 

 the book, some of which have since been identified. It must also 

 be remembered that many of the " Dubia " of the first edition of 

 the Flora were in the Amcenitates relegated to their right position 

 in the list (see Journ. Bot. reprint, p. 2), while those that remain 

 are styled " Obscurae." This shows that Linneeus's knowledge of 

 the British Flora was at least progressive, and possibly less super- 

 ficial than has been supposed. 



Of the three hundred omissions to which Mr. Druce refers, 

 many seem mere forms of the species which precede them ; 

 others are critical species which were determined at a much later 

 date. But it is obvious that, even if Mr. Druce's criticism could 

 be maintained, it cannot aft'ect the identifications which Linnaeus 

 published. 



Among these identifications, Mr. Druce finds "upwards of a 



