BOOK NOTICES. 



221 



authority for Ulmus montana, not Smith ; and Stokes's name surculosa supersede 

 U. campestris as Smith defined it. It is not necessary, however, to here point out 

 all of them, the numerous examples of the alterations made we have given, 

 advisedly, in order that local users of the catalogue may correlate them to the 

 names in the floras they make use of. But we may point out in passing, that to 

 reduce the large Thalictrum well enough known as majus Sm., our commonest 

 inland species, to a variety of T. minus as 'c. flexuosum (Reichb.)' seems to us 

 an unwarranted proceeding. As Pryor said, there is little doubt that it is identical 

 with T. jacquinianum Koch, which name it should bear : to tear the Friesian 

 Kochii away from it and give that as a var. of the De Candollean saxatile, which 

 (if distinct) it is extremely doubtful whether it occurs in Britain at all, is quite 

 inadmissible. And what, pray, can be said for the cool suppression of the 

 universally-adopted Habenaria chlorantha Bab. in favour of Habenaria chloroleuca 

 Ridley? The Platanthera chlorantha Cust. of Nyman, etc., Babington adopted 

 the specific title more than 30 years ago in re-defining it, sub Habenaria, as distinct 

 from bifolia, and we fail to see the reason why it should be superseded now. 

 Neither is it legitimate procedure on the part of an editor of a bare non-descriptive 

 catalogue in which several men have collaborated, to enter Aira setacea Huds. {A. 

 uliginosa Weihe), because (following 'Genera Plantarum') ranging under the genus 

 Deschampia, as '1675 setacea, Mihi.' Who is the me, meant? It maybe Mr. 

 Hanbury, or it may be Dr. Boswell, for anything stated to the contrary, seeing 

 that his ' own corrected copy of the seventh edition ' forming the basis of the new 

 catalogue was ' largely used.' 



The 'pater' of Stellaria palustris (glauca, With.) should have Retz. appended. 

 We suppose that '523 sewpervirens L.' under Rosa refers to the non-indigenous 

 stray Mr. Towndrow christened Melvini. CEnanthe ' peucedanifolia, "Pole" may 

 be the English plant with oblong tubers we have known so long as CE. silaifolia, 

 but its resuscitation is likely to prove confusing, the plant under that name in our 

 older floras being almost universally CE. lachenalii. Should not Valeriana 

 i 7nikanii (Wats.) ' be procurrens, Wallr. ? We note the insertion of a var.Jlosculoszis 

 Jord. of the common Ragwort, but find no recognition of the fact (although in other 

 genera great prominence is given to the result of like intercourse) that the Senecios 

 hybridize freely, S. vulgaris with S. squalidus, and S. erucifolius with S. jacobcea 

 especially. The genus Rubiis, ' revised carefully ' by Prof. Babington, presents the 

 unfortunate student with quite a host of new names, intelligible doubtless to one or 

 two botanists, but to everyone else quite unusable unless the Professor gives us a 

 revised edition of his 'British Rubi.' We fear, however, the mere sight of the list 

 of 61 in some cases quite crack-jaw names {e.g., Schlickumi, etc.) will more than 

 ever deter many from tackling the race. How is it that the genus Rosa, mono- 

 graphed by Baker as Rubus has been by Babington, has undergone no such start- 

 ling transformation — were its forms marshalled so much more thoroughly at the 

 outset ? Neither have the Hieracia nor the Salices undergone much change from 

 the seventh edition ; the latter too little, if anything, seeing that to approximate 

 uniformity and truth, many more of the names than the solitary one {cnspidata) 

 indicated, should have been marked as hybrids. We have it on high authority 

 that in a multitude of counsellors there is wisdom, but to our mind this catalogue 

 offers a much better example of the slang phrase ' too many cooks spoil the broth ; ' 

 the coadjutors in the task of remoulding this simulacrum of our British flora were 

 doubtless able individually, but a real or supposed necessity for respecting their 

 differing botanical idiosyncrasies and methods, has deprived the result of consistency 

 and due proportion. 



Some species names in the list are quite new to us : 1002 Myosotis Balbisiana 

 Jord., and the hybrid Irish fern, 1774 Asplenium clermontce Syme, have surely no 

 right to figure as ver-species, whilst what is meant by ' 181,0 (lanceolatum 

 Angstrom) ? ' we cannot make out clearly. The Characeae (the work of Messrs. 

 Groves) are, as was to be expected, well and carefully arranged ; we are glad to 

 note that Chara papulosa Kuetz, and Nitella capitata Agardh, are decisively 

 entered as integers of our flora. 



As for minor errors : the orthography of several names with a Greek origin 

 is inexcusably faulty. When under Ajuga the word Chamaipitys (ground-pine, 

 from TiTvs a pine tree) can be rightly spelled, it is ridiculous to insert the second 



July 1886. 



