180 
THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
(p. 47) presents a double difficulty, for the Hollyhock does not grow 
on the island. If any one ever “ suggested that Coltsfoot is probably 
coldswoo^” (sic) we agree with the Archdeacon that “this is un¬ 
likely ” ; perhaps the name intended is cold’s food —an explanation 
given in Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Pahle with a German 
equivalent, calfs (sic) futter , “ i. e. food for colds and coughs”! 
Plant Names, however, is quite a useful little book, and the mis¬ 
takes we have pointed out can easily be corrected in a second edition. 
3. The title of Prof. Harvey-Gibson’s little book is somewhat 
misleading, for it is not “ British Plant Names ” that are considered 
in it, but the names of British plants. Save for a short and not 
always quite accurate introduction—it is certainly not always the 
case that when a genus is sunk “ under another and more compre¬ 
hensive genus, the name of the latter is then cited as the generic one 
and the older generic name becomes the specific one, the original 
specific name being dropped,”—the little book is a dictionary, arranged 
in one alphabet; the derivations, though short, convey much infor¬ 
mation ; thus after commemorative names, which when specific have 
a small initial, are given the country and dates of the person com¬ 
memorated—not always accurately nor completely— e.g. “T. Ivlrk, 
Irish botanist, flor. 1869” would stand more correctly “New Zealand 
botanist (1828-97).” There is a useful explanatory list of abbrevia¬ 
tions, and the names are accented—we note that Gladiolus stands as 
“ Gladiolus ,” although, as has been said, there can be no doubt 
whatever about the true pronunciation [ Glad iolus^, those who adopt 
it are still in a small minority. 
The explanations of Latin names so far as we have tested them, 
seem on the whole accurate, though we regret the inclusion of such 
entries 'as that appended to Archangelica —“ by some regarded as 
named after the Archangel Michael, or because it is said to be in 
flower on St. Michael’s Day!” (italics ours); there are, however, 
curious slips—e. g. “ bahusiensis , native to (sic) Balms, a district in 
Brazil ” ; Bahus was an old province of Sweden ; the author was pro¬ 
bably thinking of Bahia. In view of the fact that the book is likely 
to be accepted as a convenient authority, the speculations as to English 
names are unfortunate and, we venture to think, out of place : e. g. we 
read (s.v. Campanula) “ Harebell, Anglo-Saxon liar a ; originalh r 
hoary, thence transferred to hairy, from the delicate hair-like pe¬ 
duncles ” ; but hairy and hair-like are not synonymous, and C. rotundi- 
folia is neither hoary nor hairy. It would seem that the Professor 
accepts the purely modern explanation of the name (s.v. Harebell), 
as to which the Oxford Dictionary terselv says “ Hair-bell, non- 
existent,” adding that “ Bindley tried to establish [the name] in this 
sense, leaving hare-bell to its original sense”— i.e., as is shown by 
numerous quotations, S'cilia nutans. Privet again (s.v. Ligustrum) 
is “perhaps a form of private, from its use in forming hedges or 
screens ” ; the Oxford Dictionary mentions this suggestion, adding 
“ but of this there is no evidence.” The temptation to suggest 
derivations often proves irresistible to a dictionary-maker; the 
reference to Coltsfoot in the preceding notice shows what it may 
4 
