426 lI. SEGREGATES AND 
clearly understood by them. Of course, the localities for these 
segregates are yet sparingly on record; and, if on record at 
all, they may usually have been assigned to some other more 
aggregate species. Third, there is the very troublesome class of 
“splits,” in which not only are old familiar species subdivided into 
these recent and yet unfamiliar segregates, but in which also 
transfers of name from one thing to another, the raking up of old 
obsolete names to displace those in habitual use, and perverse 
misapplications of names so as to give them different meanings 
from heretofore, —all come in more or less, to make confusion and 
to insure false records and frequent misnomers. 
The simple fact of severance always creates the topographical 
difficulty, even though quite warranted by clear differences in 
nature, and distinctly explained in books, without confusion- 
creating name-changes. Under these most favorable conditions 
it takes a long time before the segregates become so generally 
understood by botanists, that the recorded localities for them can 
also become numerous and generally correct. Too many of those 
which must here be treated after some fashion, have only quite 
recently been distinguished in books, as quasi-species, with special 
names and descriptions ; and they have become known as yet to 
very few botanists. Some of them which have been admitted only 
into the latter editions of Professor Babington’s carefully worked 
‘Manual of British Botany,’ or have first appeared in this country 
in the new edition of ‘ English Botany,’ under Mr. Boswell- 
Syme’s discriminating Editorship, are yet imperfectly known to 
myself as living realities, or even remain still unknown either 
alive in nature or mummified in the herbarium. To the general 
body of botanical observers and collectors, scattered through 
England, several of them must be utterly unknown, or be so 
unfamiliar that little of reliance can be placed at present on 
reports of localities for them. Thus, in too many instances, the 
records being few, and not always reliable if made, the time is 
not yet come for condensing the localities into any fixed formula 
that would truly illustrate the distribution of the plauts geographi- 
cully considered, 
