75 
PRIORITY OF NAME. 
A misconception seems to be current amongst some botanists 
that a MS. name in a private herbarium, or the description of a 
new species printed in a report which is circulated privately, or 
printed only for the use of a public department, is sufficient to 
establish priority for that species. In order to establish any 
claim for priority, we hold that the species must be published^ 
either by the circulation of specimens in published fasciculi, or 
by description in some work accessible to the public. A privately, 
or exclusively, printed report which is not sold or published, is no 
security for priority of name. 
We hold that unless a name or description is so published that 
it is accessible to botanists, its author cannot claim for it any 
other right than that of a manuscript name. It is presumed 
that if a description is published it is known, or might be known, 
to all botanists, but such presumption cannot be extended to 
names or descriptions privately printed ; for acquaintance with 
which no facilities are afforded either by purchase or otherwise. 
W e are assured that we are only expressing the general view of 
this subject which is recognised by all European Naturalists. It 
would be manifest injustice to expect Naturalists to respect names 
with which they cannot possibly become acquainted through the 
ordinary channels of scientific literature. The first published 
name, when accompanied by a sufficient diagnosis for the identifi- 
cation of a species, has recognised priority. Had not this plain 
doctrine been ignored or controverted, we should not have 
considered such an explanation necessary. 
M. J. Berkeley, 
R. Braithwaite, 
M. C. Cooke, 
J. M. Crombie, 
F Kitton. 
CARRINGTON’S BRITISH HEPATICJE.* 
The fourth part of this work is before us, and although the 
work proceeds slowly, it gives promise of ultimate completion. 
There are four plates, but we cannot enumerate the species, since 
the names are not attached ; this, we would suggest, is a mistake, 
since, for reference, it is always most convenient to have the name 
with the figure. The species described in this part are Plagio- 
chila exigua, Tayl., Mylia Taylori, G. & B., and its two sub- 
species, Scapania nemorosa, Dumort., Scapania resupinata, 
Dumort., Scapania cequiloba, Dumort., Scapania Bartlingii, N. ab. 
E., and Scapania curta, Dumort. From this it would appear 
* ^‘Britisli Hepaticae,” by B. Carrington, M.D., F.R.S.E. Part lY, 
London ; Hardwicke and Bogue. 
