178 
THE JOURNAL OE BOTANY 
essential precaution when the records of botanically ignorant folk 
are in question *. 
While, however, doubt may fairly be entertained with regard to 
the accuracy of some of the names in the list, a considerable number 
of which rest upon the unsupported testimony of a “ schoolchild,” 
the proportion of these is relatively small, but includes some which 
surely should have been omitted— e. g ., Mr. Macmillan, on the 
authority of “a school-girl” gives the name “Joseph and Mary ” as 
used locally for “ Spotted Ferns,” by which he “ believes she means 
the common hartstongue ” : the reference to spots and the general 
application of the name throughout the district to Rulmonaria leaves 
little doubt that this was intended ; but in any case it is difficult to 
see what is gained b} 7 speculative identifications in such a case. 
Again, “Judas Tree” as applied to the Tulip-tree is, as Mr. Mac¬ 
millan says, “ probably due to a confusion of names”; it is surely 
treating legend too seriously when it is pointed out that “ elders, in 
this country at least, would hardly be suitable in size or strength for 
the purpose” of hanging Judas, with whose suicide the Elder is some¬ 
times popularly associated. 
Some names which at first suggest doubt are supported by indis¬ 
putable authority; thus Miss Ida Roper vouches that Clcidium is 
at Shapwick called “ Pussy-cats’-tails,” and the name of “ Aaron’s 
beard ” for Allium vineale was suggested by the heads “ with the stiff 
young leaves growing out of the top.” But surely “ Frenchman’s 
Darling ” came from some book—there are too many book-names in 
the list—where it was assumed (incorrectly) that the French name 
for Reseda odorata was mignonette, which, of course, it isn’t— 
French folk always call it “reseda.” To take one more instance of 
misapplication, one feels that such a name as “Eggs and Bacon,” 
though vouched for by “ a well-informed correspondent,” could never 
have been applied to R arnassia , which, moreover, “ has not been seen in 
Somerset for a hundred years ” ; and the editor’s presumption that 
“ the name refers to some cultivated variety ” is the kind of sugges- 
tion which occupies space uselessly, for surely no “ variety ” is in 
cultivation. 
So far our comments on Mr. Macmillan’s contribution to popular 
nomenclature have been somewhat critical; but we are far from dis¬ 
paraging the value on the interest, from a dialectal point of view, of 
the copious material he has brought together. He has shown in one 
particular—what everyone who has taken up dialect work or is accus¬ 
tomed to refer to the Dialect Dictionary knows in general—how 
inexhaustible is the vocabulary of the language still waiting to be 
collected. Of such names as these a supplement to the Dictionary of 
English Riant-names has for years been accumulating : this, it is 
hoped, may some day see the light, and will be greatly increased by 
the contents of Mr. Macmillan’s book. From it we may take an 
example of a name which has never hitherto been identified and, so far 
* An instance which conies to hand as we write is given in the recent 
Supplement to the Flora of Cornwall , where it is stated that Hypericum linearii- 
folium , recorded in a local paper “ as having been found by a schoolchild, .... 
proved to be Hieracium aurantiacum .” 
