PERSONAL AUTHOBITIES. 587 



1. The compiler's oim notes, including with them the labels of 

 specimens collected by his own hand at any past date, and still 

 preserved in his herbarium. These have gradually accumulated 

 during the long period from 1830 to 1880 ; and much that was 

 seen during the two score years and over, without being specially 

 noted in writing, has been as gradually fading from recollection. 

 The sign of certainty " ! " has thus been used in this work more 

 sparingly than otherwise it might have been given. Indeed, the 

 omission of that sign has been made in some instances, although 

 localities for the plants have been printed elsewhere on the 

 compiler's own testimony. It has not been added to the names 

 of the counties in this work simply because present recollection 

 or manuscript note now fails, although the former book record 

 is stiU believed to be a true one. On the other hand, his own 

 recollections for Surrey being recent and confident, he has taken 

 little care to confirm them by a second personal authority. 



But a new chance of error in the use of the " ! " has crept in, 

 which was quite unexpected, and thus not thoroughly guarded 

 against while correcting the proofs, more especially those of the 

 earlier pages. The printing had not proceeded far, before it 

 became too evident that compositors occasionally exchanged 

 these three signs " ! . ? " set after the names of counties, 

 placing one instead of the other ; at the same time also it was 

 seen that the three abbreviations " sp. ms. cat." were occasion- 

 ally exchanged one for another. 



Substitutions of this kind, if undetected on the proofs, might 

 bring about an utter alteration of statement or falsification of 

 fact. For instance, if " Cornwall ? " were set " Cornwall." 

 instead, the doubting query would of course be converted into an 

 undoubting acceptance ; and if it were set " Cornwall ! " instead, 

 the compiler would be made to express certainty on his own 

 personal testimony, where he had meant to shew questioning 

 uncertainty as to some other person's testimony. So, likewise, 

 if, " Smith sp." were set instead of " Smith ms." the misprint 

 would importantly change the testimony, and would make the 



