XU 
INTRODUCTION. 
the convenience of those Avho may wish to study the derivations he 
has given. 
A fear of making our Dictionary too bulky has prevented us from 
tracing at any length the similarity of plant-names in the various 
European languages, although much interesting matter has come 
before us in connection with this point, as well as in regard to the 
adaptation by colonists to the flora of foreign lands of the plant- 
names familiar to them at home. Should, however, a polyglot 
dictionary of plant-names ever be undertaken, we are not without 
hope that the present work may be found worthy of attention as 
representing the popular nomenclature of the flora of this country. 
With regard to such a polyglot work, it may be noted that two 
volumes have already appeared which aim at supplying what many 
persons have felt to be a want : viz. the ‘ Internationales Worterbuch 
der Pflanzennamen in Lateinischer, Deutscher, Englischer, und 
Eranzosischer Sprache,’ by Dr. Wilhelm Ulrich (Leipzig : 1872) ; 
and the ‘ Catalogo Poliglotto delle Piante,’ by the Contessa di San 
Giorgio (Elorence : 1870). Unfortunately, neither of them is at all 
satisfactory, the names included being apparently merely collected 
from ordinary botanical text-books, which, as we have already stated, 
are generally mere translations of the Latin equivalents, and in no 
sense folk-names, while some even of the most generally received of 
English vernacular names are omitted. Earlier attempts at a poly- 
glot dictionary of plant-names have, however, been made, regarding 
which we may be permitted to quote the following passages from 
a notice contributed by one of us to the ‘Journal of Botany’ for 
1873, pp. 280-283:— 
“ As long ago as 1682, Mentzelius published a folio ‘Index nonii- 
num plantarum universalis,’ which is pretty satisfactory as far as it 
goes, though of comparatively little practical use on account of its 
ante-Linnean nomenclature. So far as we know, Nemnich’s ‘ Allge- 
meines Polyglotten-Lexicon der Uatur-Geschichte ’ is still the most 
comprehensive dictionary of the kind which we possess, although 
published as long ago as 1793 ; and this notwithstanding the appear- 
ance of others of more recent date. It is, however, somewhat 
remarkable that at least three botanists of note have at different 
