WILLIAM BARCLAY 
237 
minor variations so abundantly found in the southern canina-dume- 
torum series all bearing their varietal names are as profusely de¬ 
veloped in its northern counterpart the glauca-coriifolia series that 
came so prominently before his notice. But Barclay had no sym¬ 
pathy for the species-monger. He could never understand the 
attitude of mind which resulted in the creation of innumerable names 
such as were proposed by continental authors, making “ confusion 
worse confusion.” It was some satisfaction to him to know that by 
his position as a referee in the Botanical Exchange Clubs, by corre¬ 
spondence and in other ways, he was able to make his moderating 
influence felt. He was satisfied with the major species that are 
recognisable in the field or in the herbarium ; when recent cytolo- 
gical work on the genus became known he remained content with 
the larger morphological view, saying that “ after all, one cannot sit 
down in the field with a microscope and count the chromosomes in 
order to determine one’s species.” He was not a species-hunter ; the 
criticism that the field botanist neglects ninety-nine common plants 
“ in the transports of finding some obscure or critical type ‘ new to 
the district ’ ” could never be advanced against him. The man was 
much bigger than that. He searched for abiding knowledge, not for 
passing notoriet}^ 
In his latter years practically all Barclay’s botanical energies 
were devoted to the study of the genus he had determined to master, 
and to make more room in his herbarium for his Boses he gave his 
general collection of plants to the writer in 1913. He did not mount 
his specimens in orthodox fashion, but left them loose between double 
covers, enabling him “always to get a better look at them.” With 
some persuasion from his friends he published his matured views on 
his favourite genus in a number of papers in Proc. Perth. Soc. Nat. 
Sci. ; “ Our Native Hybrid Boses ” appeared in 1911 and “ Notes on 
Boses ” in 1915 and 1916. 
It is no secret that Barclay was asked to write the account of the 
genus Rosa for the Cambridge British Flora, but, although that is 
a considerable time ago, he felt even then that increasing years and 
ties of home would prevent him from completing a work which 
involved, as he recognised it would, repeated consultations of the 
great libraries and collections at South Kensington and Kew. But 
the invitation was a recognition of the man’s worth and of his ability 
to perform a difficult task, and anyone seeking a sound view on one 
of our most troublesome genera could not do better than turn to 
Barclay’s “ Notes.” 
In the early part of the present } T ear, in recognition of his services 
to botanical science he was recommended for election as an Associate 
©f the Linnean Society. The election took place on 3rd May. Three 
days later he wrote to me saying he had never been particularly 
desirous of having distinctions attached to his name—characteristic 
of the man—“ but,” he adds, “ this is one which I shall estimate 
very highly and be proud of as long as life lasts.” It is sad to 
realise that only for seven brief days did he enjoy the honour he 
prized so much and which he so justly deserved. 
J. B. Matthews. 
