THE HISTORY OF AITON S ' HORTUS KEWENSIS V 



signature of Brown MSS." To this must be added Bennett's 

 statement," that "on that portion " of the work printed after the 

 death of Dryander in 1810 [Oct. 19] [Brown] •' bestowed the same 

 attention which had been devoted by Dryander to the earher 

 portion, and by Solander to the first edition, adding largely to the 

 elucidation of certain Families and Genera." Heward, writing in 

 Hooker's Journal of Botany in 1842, refers to Brown as " super- 

 intending the progress of the latter volumes through the press." 

 It seems likely that Brown communicated to Bennett, so many 

 years his colleague in the British Museum, information which 

 enabled the latter to include in the Miscellaneous Works the 

 "Genera et Species Plantarum e variis Familiis . . . extracted from 

 Hortus Keivensis, 2nd edition, vol. Ill, IV & V," which occupy 

 pp. 503-510 of the second volume; and this entry seems to indicate 

 the volumes (dated respectively 1811, 1812, 1813) which Brown 

 " saw through the press." Pritzel (ed. 1) is somewhat more precise : 

 he says that Brown " curavit editionem alteram Horti Kewensis a 

 classe xii ad xxiv," i. e. from vol. iii. p. 175 onwards. Brown's 

 name is appended in the Hortus to two only of the new names 

 claimed for him by Bennett, and the Herbarium does not conj&rm 

 this claim — indeed, in one case it implicitly denies it, for Stemodia 

 loarviflora, which Bennett includes among the plants "e variis 

 familiis," attributed to Brown, is written up by Bennett himself 

 in the Herbarium as " Stemodia parviflora Sol." The MSS. 

 offer no evidence, as it is described neither in Brown's nor in 

 Solander's. That at least one name of Brown's now accepted was 

 adopted in consequence of verbal communication is shown by a 

 note by A. P. De Candolle in Syst. Nat. ii. 435, where the name 

 ChorisjJora is substituted for Chorisperma, with the remark : 

 " Chorispori nomen ob nimiam cum Corispermo similitudinem 

 ipse mutavit cl. Brown, ut me monuit in colloquio." 



The foregoing evidence is, I think, sufficient answer to Messrs. 

 Groves's question — "How does 'everybody know' that Eobert 

 Brown described Mathiola in the absence of evidence in the work 

 itself?" but it of course in no way excludes the application of 

 the Article which says "it is necessary to quote the author 

 who first published." It can hardly be suggested that they 

 should be cited as of W. T. Alton ; but they cannot be quoted 

 as " R. Br. et (or apud) Alton," for they were not referred 

 by the publisher to their author, as Article 42 requires in 

 the case of such citations and also when "in" is used in 

 place of "ex" or "apud." Yet "in Ait. Hort. Kew." is in 

 accordance with the facts of the case, and under the special 

 circumstances it may be suggested that in the particular instance 

 of the CrucifercB an exception should be made to the Rule, and 

 that the citation "R. Br. in Hort. Kew. 2," which has been in 

 general use from 1821 (DC. Syst. Nat.) and is maintained in the 

 Index Kewensis, should be recognized as legitimate. Some such 

 exception seems hinted at by Asa Gray in this Journal for 1882 



• Pref. to MiscelL Bot. Works, li. vi. 



