PRITZEL'S "INDEX. 



17 



Kaempfer, &c, in the correction of which existing commentaries 

 and the references of more modern authors did me good service." 



I do not think Pritzel could possibly have done otherwise. 

 Had he tested every name, and corrected the false ascriptions, he 

 might never have ended his task. He was perfectly justified in 

 cataloguing the names of plants as he found them, leaving it to 

 experts to detect errors ; his function was to guide enquirers for 

 the scattered figures in a long series of volumes, or detached cuts 

 in special volumes, almost entirely from the time of Carl von Linne 

 onward. Two great works of pre-Linnean botany were excepted — 

 that is, he included the " Hortus indicus malabaricus " of Rheede 

 tot Draakenstein. 1678-1703, and the " Herbarium amboinense " 

 of Rumpfius, 1741-1755, both of which have determinations of 

 modern names, of the first by A. W. Dennstedt and C. W. 

 Dillwyn, of the second by A. W. E. T. Wenschel and J. K. 

 H ass karl respectively, which were at our author's service for citation. 



One cannot repress a feeling of regret that, H any pre-Linnean 

 books are to be cited, the noble woodcuts of Fuchs (1642), the 

 Valgrisian edition of Mattioli (1565 and 1569), and Colonna's 

 etchings (1597 and 1616) should be excluded, but the question of 

 renaming and of interpretation becomes a great embarrassment. 

 There is one grave complaint to be brought against Pritzel's method, 

 and that is, in some cases he has given numbers for plates which 

 are not official ; apparently he put numbers to certain copies to 

 which he had access, and quoted those numbers. The result is that 

 his citations as regards these books are useless beyond stating that 

 such figures are to be found somewhere in the volumes cited. As 

 an example let me instance Curtis, " Flora londinensis," 1777-98 

 (second edition, by W. J. Hooker, 1817-28), in folio, with admirable 

 plates, but the references in Pritzel do not help one to turn to the 

 plates. A short time ago I was forced to draw up an index to 

 Curtis for my own use ; it was afterwards printed in the Journal 

 of Botany, vol. liv. (1916), pp. 153-164, utilizing the official numbers. 



The fact now faces us that no printed record of the many excel- 

 lent figures puolished since 1865 to the present day, a period of 

 53 years, is available. The Botanical Magazine has continued its 

 regular and even succession of plates and has brought out a general 

 index down to 1904, when Sir Joseph Hooker retired from the 

 editorial chair. There are now fourteen volumes since that date, 

 and those of us who have to look up botanical plates have perforce 

 to keep an index of them up to current issues. 



But this series of volumes is a simple matter ; we must remember 

 the large number of periodicals — existing or defunct — separate 

 volumes, publications of societies, a widely scattered literature wrr'ch 

 needs to be focussed for effective use. This, it is obvious, could 

 be most easily done by a revision and reissue of Pritzel's " Index." 

 When done, it will be an invaluable help to all who have to deter- 

 mine plants or confirm their naming. Whether in one volume or 



VOL. XLV. C 



