132 Recently Published Catalogues of British Plants. 
Cratcegus Oxyacantha has become two separate species, the old 
name being retained for the less common form ; and the commoner 
form, formerly considered as a variety, becomes C. monogyna. 
Taraxacum Dens-leonis has become four species. For ourselves, we 
think the sub-division of legitimately divisible species may serve a 
useful purpose. Some of the segregates are possibly the “ ecads ” 
of Professor Clements : others are probably the “ elementary 
species ” of De Vries ; and generally most of them are worth serious 
study from the modern points of view. But we should like to see 
an arrangement of species which would indicate the closely allied 
segregates and the remotely allied aggregates (on the lines possibly 
of Hooker’s Students’ Flora) when the working out of the signi¬ 
ficance of these multiple forms could, at least, be presented to 
posterity as a problem capable of solution. At present, the 
catalogue does not present any harmonious notions as to the value 
of genera, species, varieties, and forms; though we freely admit 
that each succeeding edition of the catalogue is, in this respect and 
along what we may perhaps term Jordan’s lines, an advance on its 
predecessor. The catalogue, however, aims at utility ; and, until 
some such method of indicating the allied segregates is found, the 
utility of the catalogue will remain seriously at fault. We put 
forward this point of view in all seriousness to the critical 
systematists whose labour of love it is to revise the more difficult 
genera. 
We are also strongly of opinion that the time is now ripe for 
the consideration of the question whether or not the arrangement 
of orders according to the Genera Plantarum of Bentham and 
Hooker should be superseded by that of the Pflanzenfamilien of 
Engler. There are certain details of the arrangement of Bentham 
and Hooker, which, we are pleased to note, the Oxford catalogue 
modifies ; but the retention, by both the London and Museum 
catalogues, of the Gymnosperms, in their old place between Dicoty¬ 
ledons and Monocotyledons is a serious anomaly in the light of 
established knowledge. The least that the eleventh edition of the 
London catalogue should do is to place the Gymnosperms between 
the Angiosperms and the Pteridophytes, and to give an alternate 
list of cohorts and orders arranged according to modern views of 
affinity. An eleventh edition of the catalogue will become a 
desideratum after the results of the Brussels Congress in 1910 ; 
and we hope the Editor and his collaborators will consider the 
possibility of adopting the friendly suggestions we have here made. 
The catalogue of mosses is a straightforward attempt to 
provide a standard list of British mosses, arranged according to the 
latest views. The mosses are named in accordance with The 
Students’ Handbook of British Mosses (Dixon and Jameson), except 
the Sphagna, which are arranged according to Warnstorf’s system. 
The distribution of the species and varieties is indicated by means 
of numbers—those of H. C. Watson’s 112 divisions of Great Britain 
and R. Lloyd Praeger’s 40 divisions of Ireland being used. This is 
an excellent plan, which we wish it were possible to adopt in the case 
of the London catalogue. There can be no doubt that both this 
and the London catalogue ought to be in the hands of all botanists 
interested in field work. C. E. Moss. 
R, Madley, Printer, 151, Whitfield Street, London, W. 
