98 The British Flora. 
We fancy that persons fond of hunting out small blemishes, may 
find in the pages of the British Flora some few occasions for enjoy- 
ing such amusement ; which will surprise no one who considers the 
multitudinous avocations of its author. Such enjoyment we willing- 
ly leave to those who love it, and offer to the work, as a whole, our 
almost unqualified approbation; its plan is good; enough, and not too 
much is said in describing the species ; and while the descriptions 
are sufficiently clear and simple for students, there is also matter cal- 
culated to fix the attention of professed botanists. The nice discri- 
minations of Messrs Arnott, Wilson, and Borrer, appear in many 
places in the first volume; in the second volume, we may add to them 
the names of Greville, Harvey, Berkeley, Carmichael, Purton, and 
Mrs Griffiths, as contributing largely to it. The second part of this 
volume seems to have been confided almost entirely to the Rev. M. 
J. Berkeley, and much of the first part is properly attributable to 
Dr Greville and Mr Harvey ; we allude more particularly to the 
Algce. With such a combination of skill for the different depart- 
ments, it is impossible that the work should be otherwise than very 
valuable: it is an admirable example of the advantages attendant 
on a division of labour, but union of talent. 
We do, notwithstanding, object strongly to some points. In -the 
first place, the names and descriptions of several species are still in- 
troduced, as if really belonging to British plants, although there is 
not a shadow of evidence to prove that such species have ever been 
found in Britain, and positive certainty that some of them were ori- 
ginally introduced into our Floras by mere blunders. Again, names 
and descriptions of imaginary species are still repeated, although re- 
lating to what are now known to be varieties, some of them very 
trifling varieties, and others so inconstant as to have become extinct, 
unless in the case of specimens preserved by {( the curious." Such 
names and descriptions are said to be retained " in deference to the 
opinion" of one or other botanical authority, and contrary to the 
opinions of the author of the Flora. We dislike deference carried so 
far. It is the sacrifice of science to superstition, of fact to fancy, 
of truth to error. Such sacrifices operate as the dead- weights and 
drag-chains of improvement, moral as well as intellectual. This 
fault is, indeed, found in all our Floras ; but it ought to be amend- 
ed, and the author of the British Flora is the fittest person to set 
the example. 
