BENTHAM S BRITISH FLORA. 
133 
Handbook of the British Flora, &c. By George Bentham, F. L. S. 
London: Eeeve. 1858. 
An entirely new British Flora is, indeed, a novelty in botanical litera¬ 
ture, such as has not appeared within the memory of the present gene¬ 
ration. British plants have been described and re-described under many 
forms, either in general or local Floras, and the same dish been served up, 
with new sauces, till we are wearied with its repetition. One would 
hardly suppose, therefore, that there were room in a field so well 
trodden for a new candidate for distinction. And yet the space is 
ample; for, till now, the ever recurring question, “What hook do you 
recommend ?” could not he satisfactorily answered. The faults of pre¬ 
vious Floras have been either that their matter was needlessly spun out, 
or so condensed and incumbered with technicalities, that a student found 
it difficult to comprehend; or, too often, that one author had confidingly 
transferred to his own pages the descriptions of his predecessors. Thus, 
in many cases, errors were perpetuated, and frequently increased, little 
by little, by successive copyings and adaptations. The “ Flora Britan- 
nica” and subsequent writings of Sir James Smith were the nucleus 
from which several more recent Floras were derived. 
Hooker’s “British Flora” succeeded Smith, the author adopting most 
of Smith’s species, but condensing the matter, changing the plan from 
the Linnaean to the natural arrangement, and adding several illustrative 
plates of the more troublesome genera. The latest edition of this work, 
edited by Dr. Walker Arnott, though changed in some respects, retains 
the greater portion of the original matter, and, with the preceding edi¬ 
tions, can only be regarded as a “ cultivated variety” (so to say) of the 
original stock, the “ Flora Britannica.” To the same stock may be re¬ 
ferred, perhaps, the majority of the local Floras. 
Babington’s “Manual,” which latterly has contested the field with 
Hooker and Arnott, claims another parentage, the limits of species 
adopted and advocated being more in conformity with the views of some 
European botanists than of the British school. This author has very 
carefully elaborated his subject, and though we cannot subscribe to his 
deductions, we should be unjust to withhold the praise due to pains¬ 
taking and laborious research, with an earnest desire to elicit the truth 
of nature. In vol. iv., p. 39, we have noticed the latest edition of Mr. 
Babington’s work, which may be recommended to all those interested in 
the study of varying local forms of our wild plants. 
Mr. Bentham’s “ Handbook,” now before us, is a very different work 
from those of Smith, Hooker, or Babington, and, in our judgment, 
supplies a want which none of them have successfully met. It addresses 
itself not merely to the botanist by profession, but to the uninstructed 
student; and it speaks in language so clear and intelligible, that by its 
help, with common care and attention, a knowledge of our native plants 
may readily be acquired by any one. The terminology of the science, 
so indispensable, but so troublesome and repulsive, to the student, is 
clearly, though briefly, explained in the Introduction, and sufficiently 
vol. v.— rev. x 
