SELBORNIANA. 
175 
May flower or ladies’ smock now gives way to Cardamine, speedwell to 
Veronica , pansy to Viola, larkspur to Delphinium , snap-dragon to Antirrhinum, 
and worst of all, perhaps, the little forget-me-not hides its diminished head under 
the dreary title, Myosotis ! It is quite correct to use botanical names when 
flowers are spoken of botanically, but at other times it seems rather pedantic 
and unmeaning to use Latin words when our own language supplies better and 
more descriptive names, which also have the advantage of being understood. 
[While quite concurring with our correspondent’s condemnation of the foolish 
habit, which might lead to the terrible results which she describes with playful 
exaggeration, we cannot agree with her that it is now much in vogue ; among a 
large acquaintance with botanists and flower lovers, we can hardly remember one 
who errs in that way. Is it possible that the “pedantic and unmeaning” prac- 
tice is confined to the midland district? It is also necessary to remind our 
readers, especially those who send flowers for identification, that there are a 
very large number of British plants which have no native names whatever, and 
also that there are a number of common names which are applied in different 
parts of the country to widely different plants, so that in most cases where 
accuracy and precision are required scientific names are quite indispensable.] 
Gardens of British Wild Flowers at Richmond and elsewhere. 
— We have noticed in the Thames Valley Times a somewhat similar complaint to 
that made by Mrs. W. Arthur Smith in the foregoing paragraph. A Richmond 
lady writes to say how difficult it is to recognise the Petasites fraqrans and 
Bidens tripartita are“ familiar field flowers ” ; very difficult indeed, one might add, 
for they most certainly are not. She suggests that the garden of British flowers 
lately established at the Richmond Terrace Gardens might be made more useful 
by weekly botanical demonstration, and is so exhilarated by the anticipation, that 
she incontinently breaks into poetry — 
“ Behold the Borough Botanist teach youngsters by the hour, 
And call by truly awful names each wild and harmless flower.” 
This, she says, would be a means of “ teaching the young Selbornian idea how to 
shoot ! ” 
The formation of gardens of British wild flowers has been frequently advocated 
in Nature Notes, and it is not easy to suggest one that would be more interest- 
ing and more beautiful than a good collection of plants illustrative of the flora of 
the Thames Valley. Richmond has peculiar facilities for such an undertaking, 
and it has close at hand the two botanists who have most carefully studied the 
plants of the Lower Thames Valley — Dr. Dyer, the Director of Kew Gardens, 
who published in 1869 in conjunction with Mr. Trimen, the Flora of Middlesex ; 
and Mr. Nicholson, Curator of the Gardens, who gave in 1875 an admirable 
account of the plants on the Surrey river-side, under the title of The Wild Flora 
of Kew Gardens. One was justified, therefore, in expecting great things of such 
a scheme, and certainly those expectations were immensely increased by the great 
flourish of trumpets with which it was announced in the Richmond and Twicken- 
ham Times. The Garden is, it seems, under very distinguished patronage — that 
of the Vestry, the Town Council, the General Purposes Committee and the 
Terrace Gardens Committee (whether these are all separate bodies or merely one 
assuming various titles and aspects in its chameleon-like change, we know not), 
and the Editor evidently thinks that what has been done reflects the highest credit 
on all these municipal authorities. It will “ give pleasure to all local lovers of 
natural science,” it will “ open the eyes of many people to the variety and beauty 
of the flora of the Thames Valley ; ” it will “ prove a source of useful information 
to botanical students ; ” it is one for which all “ Selbornians and other nature 
lovers” ought to be extremely grateful. 
Fortunately for readers, very unfortunately for the collection itself, in the same 
number of the paper which has been quoted, an account is given of it and the 
plants contained therein. This account will be read with the utmost amaze- 
ment by any botanist, or indeed by any body who has a fair knowledge of 
British flowers. A better example of parluriunt montes nascitur ridiculus 
mus could not possibly be found. The contrast between the pompous prelude 
and the paltry performance reminds one of nothing so much as of those amiable 
and amusing swindles which are perpetrated at some bazaars, in which the unwary 
spectator is handed a catalogue of magnificent pictures by great artists, and pene- 
trates the gallery to find himself confronted by an ingenious arrangement of brick- 
