130 
Review. 
The Oxford catalogue is the most ambitious of the three ; and 
herein, perhaps, lies its weakness. The Museum catalogue repre¬ 
sents one extreme of simplicity, the Oxford catalogue the other 
extreme of complexity. Mr. Druce’s elaborate citation of synonyms 
and authorities, his almost interminable array of varieties, hybrids 
and aliens, will, we feel sure, be regarded as wearisome by the rank 
and file of field botanists. As an example of the extreme to which 
Mr. Druce, in a laudable effort to make his list as catholic as 
possible, goes in the direction of cataloguing aliens, we may mention 
that the vine, the fig, the orange and the date-palm are honoured 
by a position in this Oxford list of British plants ! Further, whilst 
we believe that most British botanists will sympathise with Mr. 
Druce’s outburst against the favoured list of “ Nomina Conser- 
vanda,” which was unwisely and hurriedly adopted by the Vienna 
Congress, we also feel that his definite refusal to follow in toto the 
Vienna rules will be regarded as an example of not playing the game. 
To have played the game, Mr. Druce should have adopted the 
whole of the Vienna decisions, advocated certain obviously necessary 
alterations at Brussels in 1910, and endeavoured to secure the 
presence at Brussels of a sufficient number of British and American 
botanists to ensure a majority in the voting. Mr. Druce’s additional 
use of the capital letter for specific names ending in -oides is also 
vexatious; and his reason for the proposed innovation is not, in our 
judgment, sound. On the other hand, the details of the Oxford 
catalogue are, in many cases, of great value to critical field 
botanists, most of whom will doubtless, in spite of its inflated price, 
possess themselves of a copy. Whether or not the catalogue will 
be financially successful is a matter which may be left to the 
Clarendon Press syndicate. 
The London catalogue retains its familiar features; and the 
addition, in certain cases, of useful synonyms considerably 
augments its value. A further important point in its favour is its 
grouping of critical species into larger units in the case of Rubus 
and Hieracium ; and this plan should, in our opinion, be adopted in 
a large number of other genera. In the matter of cataloguing 
varieties and aliens, and of citing authorities, it takes up a com- 
mendably moderate position. The catalogue is well printed, and 
has a very neat appearance, in which regard it contrasts most 
favourably with the product of the Clarendon Press. There are 
very few misprints and omissions ; and its reasonable price will 
further enable the London catalogue to retain its premier position 
as the standard list of British vascular plants. 
The treatment of colonists and aliens in the London catalogue 
is inconsistent. For example, all the Papavera are marked by an 
asterisk to indicate that they are not truly indigenous; whilst all 
the Fumarice, most of the Brassicce, and many other weeds are 
treated as natives. Papaver somniferum is not degraded to the rank 
of a casual cr planted alien, whilst Impatiens parviflora and 
Claytonia sibirica, both of which have been established for many 
years in certain woods in the north of England are so degraded. On 
the whole, however, this portion of the London catalogue has been 
by no means badly done; and its refusal to ear-mark denizens, or 
species more or less doubtfully native, is praiseworthy, though it 
must be borne in mind that the catalogue does not pretend to 
settle disputes relating to the citizenship of species. 
