EXPLANATIONS OF THE CATALOGUE. 
The Moss List. — A new edition of this catalogue being called for, advantage 
has been taken of the opportunity to make some additions and corrections in details, 
without materially altering the technical arrangement first adopted, or greatly inter- 
fering with the numbers affixed to the specific names. The 1877 catalogue was 
arranged upon a system then recently promulgated by Jaeger, from the impression not 
so much of its absolute perfection as of its general convenience, and the likelihood of 
its being in common use for some time as a reference and standard ; and with so 
many methods of arrangement in the field, it seemed undesirable to introduce 
even one more. But few mere changes of names will be found in the present list to 
have been made out of regard to the somewhat fashionable doctrine of the claims of 
priority, the practice of which seems of very doubtful advantage, and rather likely to 
confuse than to aid the student in any way. The resuscitation of forgotten names 
seems dictated more by the vanity of writers than by desire to promote the study of 
the science, and in this instance, therefore, little heed is given to examples recently 
set, except in cases where some additional reason exists for a restoration. In some 
few cases, however, where the single line allotted to each species permitted, early 
names lately raked up have been given in brackets as synonyms. A mere catalogue 
should follow known and accepted models of nomenclature, and not attempt to lead 
the way ; intended for reference, the more familiar the better. Authors of voluminous 
monographs may indulge in “ views,” but until they have cleared the road the list 
compiler should be content to keep in the old familiar path, or he becomes a 
Ijewilderer and a misleader who should Ire a useful guide. 
Although the total number of species (568), here included as in strictness natives 
of the British Isles, appears to be the same as in the first edition, yet the alterations 
are much more numerous than would be revealed by any such superficial examination 
as a comparison of numbers. It was thought well to adhere to the original series — 
those denoting each species — as nearly as possible, and the correspondence in this 
respect between the two issues will rarely be found to differ above an unit or so. This 
result has been attained only with considerable trouble by a process of substitution. 
Bryological research during the past four years has shown the claims of many species 
hitherto included in British lists to be very slight indeed, in some cases absolutely nil ; 
whilst, on the other hand, an almost equal number of species have been established as 
indubitably occurring within our limits. The one class has balanced the other, all 
new species up to date with good Authority for their sponsor having been inserted, and 
all in the doubtful categoiy (parenthetically included and improperly numbered in the 
first edition) — with the exception of two, those numbered 333* and 380*, still 
sub judice — expunged from the body of the list, and relegated to a separate position 
at the end, after the fashion set in the Phanerogamic London Catalogue of British 
Plants. This concluding list, under the heading of Excluded Species, consists, then, 
of such as were certainly alien, such as were probably erroneously recorded, and such 
as are ill-understood, rather names than species, too hastily bestowed or referred to 
plants gathered in Britain, all representing confusion of one kind or another in the 
past. — II. Boszvell. 
The List of Hepatics. — A numbered catalogue of the Britbsh Species having 
become necessary to the Record Club as a basis for the working out of their comital 
distribution, a choice had to be made of some existing arrangement, or one entirely 
original had to be framed. The latter alternative seemed undesirable, notwithstanding 
the fact that there is in English no .sufficiently recent completed monograph of the 
class which could be followed, and that the arrangement of Synopsis Hepaticarum by 
Gottschc, Lindenberg, and Nees (Hamburgh, 1844) is somewhat antiquated, however 
