INTRODUCTION 
xv 
Arduino Animadversionum botanicarum specimen (1759). 
Miller Gardeners Dictionary , ed. 7 (1759). 
Hill Flora Britanica (1760). 
Ludwig Definitiones Plantarum, ed. 3, edit Boehmer (1760). 
Scopoli Flora Carniolica (1760). 
Gerard Flora Gallo-provincialis (1761). 
Adanson Families des Plantes (1763). 
Garsault Description... de...Plantes...suivant l' ordre du...Matere Medicate de M. Geoffroy... 
(1764-1767). 
Haller Historia Stirpium indigenarum Helvetiae inchoata (1768). 
J. G. Gmelin Flora Sibirica vols. 3 (1768) and 4 (1769), ed. S. G. Gmelin. 
How species are subdivided into varieties 
A matter which has greatly agitated the mind of Mr James Britten is the method we adopt of sub- 
dividing species into varieties. On p. xvii of the Introduction of volume II, we pointed out three ways 
of doing that, and gave our reasons for adopting the third. Mr Britten would have liked us to have 
adopted one of the first two, which of them he does not specify. Mr Britten is at liberty to adopt, in 
his own publications, the plan he deems best; but we cannot refrain from alluding to the fact that in his 
criticism {Journ. Bot. liii, 334-337 (1915)) of the plan which we (following numerous weighty authorities) 
have seen fit to choose, he was guilty, in his quotations of our remarks, of five textual inaccuracies, some 
of which made nonsense, and one of which made us say something which we had been very careful not 
to say. Knowing from experience the uselessness of drawing Mr Britten’s attention to his own mis- 
quotations, we wrote to Dr Rendle whose name Mr Britten had used. Dr Rendle’s reply was remark- 
able : he stated that he had drawn Mr Britten’s attention to the matter, and that one of the misquotations 
“was intentional,” and that, in fact, to have quoted accurately “would have raised another point for 
explanation the need of which, he [Mr Britten] thought, did not arise.” We do not remember to have 
met before with an attempt so bold (to use no other word) to explain a misquotation admitted to be 
deliberate and intentional. We are glad to think that we ourselves are not called upon to justify the 
morality of such a procedure. 
The initial letter of trivial names 
Mr Britten has also been much perturbed by another matter. He ( Journ . Bot. li, 21 (1913) and 
lii, 132 (1914)) has argued against our consistent use of the small initial letter for all trivial names. 
We need add nothing to our previous statements {Journ. Bot. li, (1913) and Cambr. Brit. FI. ii, p. xv 
(1914)) of the reasons why we adopt this course ; but one or two statements on the matter by Mr Britten 
must be corrected. 
Mr Britten asserts that there already exists a “precise rule and custom” on the matter. That can, 
of course, easily be verified or otherwise by reference to leading floras. 
Rouy {FI. France , 14 volumes) uses capital letters when (1) the trivial name is geographical (e.g., 
Cirsium Syriacum), (2) when the trivial name is personal and substantival (e.g., Jurinea Gouani), 
(3) when the trivial name is personal and adjectival (e.g., Hieracium Hoppeanum ), and (4) when the 
trivial name is also the name of an old genus (e.g., Centaurea Jacea ). 
Ascherson and Graebner {Synopsis der Mitteleurop. FI., 7 volumes already completed) use capitals 
for trivial names in the first three of the above cases but not in the fourth case ; for example, they 
write Prunus padus and not (as Rouy would do) Prunus Padus. 
The International Code recommends 1 the use of capitals in the second, third, and fourth of the 
above cases, and a small letter in the first. 
Ostenfeld and Raunkiaer {Dansk Ekskursions- Flora) use capitals only in the second and third of 
the above cases and small letters in the first and fourth. 
F. E. and S. E. Clements {Rocky Mountain Flowers ) use capitals for trivial names only in the 
second of the above cases. 
Pound and Clements {Pkytogeogr. of Nebraska ) and C. K. Schneider {Illustr. Handb. der Laub- 
holzkunde , vol. 1), in common with many zoologists and palaeobotanists, use small letters in all cases, as 
we ourselves do in the present work. 
1 A recommendation is not a rule (see Introduction to Vol. II, p. xi). 
