richard warner’s “ plants woodfordienses.” 77 
sheets is identical with that of the manuscript notes we are con¬ 
sidering ; and there is marked agreement, and in some cases 
absolute identity, as to localities, between the plants contained in 
the herbarium and those marked “ w.h.” in the manuscript notes 
as being “ in my Walthamstow herbarium.” Indeed, the British 
Museum officials have not hesitated to date certain of their 
herbarium specimens by means of the information furnished by 
these manuscript notes. 
Many of the MS. records arc undated, especially those which 
are evidently the earlier ones ; in this respect agreeing with the 
specimens in the Forster Herbarium, which never bear a date. 
A dissection of the dated records shows that these are practically 
continuous from 1784 to 1815, the only gaps being for the years 
1790, 1798, 1800, 1802, and 1813. After 1815 the blank years 
become more numerous, there being records for only 1819, 1821 
and 1824 ; but in 1825 a recrudescence of energy supervenes, 
and that year has eleven separate notes to its credit, while 1826 
has one note, and 1827 the concluding three notes of this 
long maintained annotation. 
The year most prolific in observation is 1801 with 15 notes, 
and next comes 1808 with 13 notes. The year of Edward Forster’s 
marriage (1796) sees no interruption of the observations, nor 
do the deaths of his father in 1812 and of Thomas Furly Forster 
in 1825 cause any cessation of the records. They cease in 1827, 
two years before Benjamin Meggot Forster’s decease. 
I have had considerable difficulty in deciding which of the 
three brothers was responsible for the annotations. All three 
were of botanical pursuits, all were associated in collecting plants, 
all lived and worked together during their younger years. 
The eldest brother, Thomas Furly, may be soon ruled out 
of the question. As we have seen, he left Walthamstow in 1796 
to reside at Clapton, and did not return to Walthamstow as a 
resident until 1823 ; and he died in 1825 : whereas, the anno¬ 
tations are numerous during the years of his absence, and they 
continue for two years after the date of his decease. It is there- 
tore conclusive that, notwithstanding his earlier association with 
Warner’s work in the publication of the “ Additions ” of 1784, 
Thomas Furly cannot be the author of the manuscript notes. 
To decide between the two younger brothers was more 
difficult. On the one hand, Edward’s claim in a letter to G. S. 
