4*4 
Notes on Recent Literature. 
2. The naming of a new, or presumably new, sub-specific 
form collected in a particular locality is, in general, undesirable, 
unless at the same time the form in question is compared with 
other known forms of the species, and the distinguishing characters 
of these forms also carefully delineated. 
3. In some cases (e.g., Stellnria dilleniana), the polymor¬ 
phism of a species is of such a nature that is seems undesirable to 
name, other than symbolically, the sub-specific forms which are 
known to occur. 
NOTES ON RECENT LITERATURE. 
LIST OF BRITISH LICHENS. 
A Hand-list of the Lichens of Great Britain, Ireland and the Channel 
Islands, compiled for the Lichen Exchange Club by the Secretary, A. R. 
Horwood. Dulau & Co., 1912. 
M ANY botanists who take an interest in the lichens of our islands 
have long felt the want of a list similar to that provided for 
flowering plants by the London Catalogue, and such a work has at 
length appeared, having been compiled from the British Museum 
Monograph 1 of these dual organisms. As the object of the list 
is to provide lichenologists with a ready means of indicating the 
contents of herbaria, marking for exchange purposes, and other 
similar uses, the compiler has made few alterations (except in the 
species of Lecanora) in the nomenclature adopted in the Monograph, 
but the classification adopted by Crombie has had to be widely 
departed from, the system followed being that outlined in a recent 
number of this Journal. 2 It is to be noted that the system 
adopted by Bruce Fink 3 and so lavishly and unduly praised by 
the compiler in the Lichen Exchange Report of 1910, has been 
entirely neglected. Lecanora has been rendered a less unwieldy 
1 British Lichens, Part I, by the Rev. J. M. Crombie, M.A., 
1894. Part II, by Annie Lorrain Smith, F.L.S., 1911. Pub¬ 
lished by the British Museum. 
3 See New Phytologist, Vol. XI, No. 3, March, 1912. 
3 The Lichens of Minnesota. 
