Moss; Changes in the Halifax Fiord. 



autumn, when a superficial glance at the two reveals hardly any 

 difference. Main field botanists besides Bolton, and since his 

 time, have recorded the ColcJu'cum when they saw the Crocus. 

 The mistake is made by held botanists to-day, in spite of 

 good descriptions of both plants. Bolton's text-book, a 

 Hudson [2], did not mention the Crocus at all. Well, then, 

 can the conclusion be resisted that Bolton erred in record- 

 ing Co/chicuni , or are we to have still another case of 'sub- 

 stitution'? Bolton's other work is said by those best able 

 to express an opinion to have been marked by accurate observa- 

 tion. Does that criticism apply here? It is true that Hudson 

 omits any mention of the Crocus ; but that fact does not 

 convert 'Stamina Tria ' into 'Stamina Sex.' No one to my 

 knowledge has ever suggested that Bolton recorded specimens 

 from his Hudson or his Linnaeus [1] without finding them. Did 

 I not say 'his bona fides cannot be questioned'? To me the 

 mere fact that his list appeared in 1775 is sufficient apology for 

 his errors. The wonder is, not that he made some mistakes, 

 but that he did not make more. Nor must we rush to the 

 other extreme, and assert that, because of these errors, 

 Bolton's ' memory is not one to be revered.' It was in the 

 knowledge of undoubted limitations and errors that in June 

 last I wrote: — 'The list is a peculiar one in many ways; yet 

 his bona fides cannot be questioned, nor the value of his list 

 doubted.' 



In June, positive evidence was asked for regarding the 

 'natural short stay' of some plants; and the 'Rejoinder' [9] 

 gives two cases where certain changes followed on the making 

 of water-cuts and the construction of reservoirs respectively ! 

 It is difficult to see how 7 even long experience and extended 

 observation can convert into acts of nature such obviously 

 artificial constructions as reservoirs and drains ! If by a 

 ' natural stay ' was meant after all only an ' artificial stay,' then, 

 of course, it is not surprising that misunderstanding should 

 ensue. 



It is not quite clear exactly how I misstated the case in 

 writing of ' the natural changes which species undergo in a 

 given area.' It would doubtless have been better to have used 

 the collective term 'flora' rather than the distributive term 

 ' species ' ; but after all a flora is composed of species. And 

 besides this, the context clearly showed that the station** of the 

 species, and not their morphological characters, were under 

 consideration. How absurd to think otherwise ! 



Naturalist,. 



