Obrazy na stronie


factorily whether both do occur in Britain, or whether only one of them does so occur,-and, in this latter case possibly, even to which of the two species our well-known plant should be referred. time, the generally adopted name of "limosum" was still retained for our generally known species; and the name of "fluviatile" was used for the dubious plant, in conformity with Babington's Manual. I have abstained from interrupting the continuity of my own explanation by the introduction of quotations, but it may be well to subjoin here the three following extracts from the authors mentioned, by way of completing that explanation, which would be left less intelligible without them :

FRIES.—“ E. limosum L. et fluviatile L. utique nimis affinia sunt sed apud nos (circa Upsaliam vulgaria) facile discernuntur et a nullo Botanicorum Suecorum, ad prisca contrahenda, quam nova distinguenda promptiorum, conjuncta. Ut pateat an nostra cum exterorum prorsus conveniant utruque dedimus in H. N. XI." (Summa Vegetabilium Scandinaviæ, p. 251).

[ocr errors]

BABINGTON." E. limosum (L.)" "a. limosum; teeth of the sheaths not furrowed, sheaths of the branches green with minute black tips to the round-backed ribs, branches often wanting. E. limosum Fries, ß. fluviatile; stem more deeply furrowed, teeth of the sheaths short dark brown acute: rib furrowed on the back. E. Auviatile (L.) Fries.-In stagnant water. [8. Reported to be a native]." (Manual, p. 404).

REVIEWER." In getting up Catalogues of this kind two things are to be considered: first, accuracy; secondly, intelligibility: we conceive both of these are acheived in an eminent degree in the publication before us, yet in some cases we detect a little departure from rigid accuracy, not unadvisedly, but from some motive of expediency, which the authors, had they space, would doubtless explain; for instance, take the last species in the rejected list, Equisetum fluviátile, a common English plant, to which Linneus and all continental authors apply this name. A foreigner must suppose that the wellknown Equisetum fluviatile, so common on the continent, has been recorded as an inhabitant of Britain, but that Messrs. Dennes and Watson having found that record incorrect, expunge the name: they would have no idea that it is only the Linnean name that is struck out, the plant being one of our commonest species." (Phytol. ii. 1051 et seq.).

I cannot see that a foreigner would be entitled to "suppose" the case above suggested for him by the reviewer; and for the very suffi

cient reason that the facts of the case are otherwise, and are so stated as clearly as the general plan of the Catalogue would admit in the individual instance. The retention of E. limosum in the general list of the London Catalogue' should show that our common plant, so commonly mentioned by that name, is held a true native; while the position of E. fluviatile among the "Excluded Species," with the inverted commas ("L."), and the added note of interrogation (?), should show also that something more than a mere name was intended to be quoted and queried. The latter is the plant mentioned under the same name by Fries and Babington, concerning which some more satisfactory information seems required before we can introduce it into our list of certainties.

Equisetum limosum (Lond. Cat.) = E. limosum of Smith, Hooker, Babington, &c.; E. fluviatile of Newman.


Equisetum fluviatile (Lond. Cat.) Babington; not E. fluviatile of Newman.

Thames Ditton, December 4, 1847.

E. limosum, B. fluviatile of


Notice of the London Journal of Botany,' Nos. 69 to 72, dated September to December, 1847.

No. 69. Contents: "Contributions towards a Flora of Brazil, being the Characters of several new Species of Compositæ, belonging to the tribes Mutisiacea and Nassauviaceæ," by George Gardner, Esq. "Botanical Characters of a new Plant, Isonandra Gutta, yielding the Gutta Percha of Commerce," by Sir W. J. Hooker. "Botanical Information," including a notice of Miers's Illustrations of South American Plants; a notice of Pritzel's 'Thesaurus Literaturæ Botanicæ;' advertisement or notice of an herbarium of French plants on sale; continuation of the list of Mr. Thomas Lobb's Malayan (Java) Plants; notes on Plants of the British Flora, namely, Calamagrostis stricta (Nutt.), Phalaris utriculata (Linn.), Allium sphærocephalum (Linn.), Simethis bicolor (Kunth), and Trifolium strictum (Linn.); Tussack Grass; Notes of a Continental Tour; Excursion to Mount Olympus, Van Diemen's Land, by R. Gunn, Esq.; Boissier on Spanish Botany; Myosurus cristatus (Benth); Two new Species of Peperomia described by Professor Miquel; 'Flora Tasmanniæ Spicilegium,' by Dr. J. D. Hooker.

[ocr errors]

Nos. 70 to 72. Contents: Continuation of Dr. Hooker's Floræ

Tasmanniæ Spicilegium;' 'Decades of Fungi,' by the Rev. M. J.
Berkeley. "Prodromus Monographiæ Ficuum," by Professor Miquel.
And the same Monograph is continued wholly through No. 71 and
part of No. 72.
The latter part of No. 72 being occupied by a pa-

per "Sur la Famille des Linées," by Dr. Planchon.

When any copy of the 'London Journal of Botany' chances to fall under our eyes, on the table of a subscriber, we usually find that portion of it which includes the miscellaneous articles, under the head of "Botanical Information," to be the only portion which has been looked into. The large remainder is usually in that undisturbed state which the vendors of old books so much delight to announce, namely, with pages "uncut." We presume that two circumstances may be taken into account for an explanation of this difference. Most of the other articles, albeit often valuable contributions to botanical science, are still those long and heavy papers on descriptive botany which are rather out of place in a journal, and which are seldom looked at by the readers of periodicals. The "Botanical Information" contains those announcements, on the other hand, for which almost only is a periodical taken and read. Botanists turn to the pages so intituled, because in those pages they expect the intelligence which they wish to have, and which it is usually understood to be the province of a journal to supply them with. This is the first circumstance which causes the pages in question to be cut open, while the rest are neglected. The second circumstance to which we allude is, that the words "Botanical Information," in the table of contents, convey no intimation whatever of the items or kind of intelligence to be found under that general title; and it is thus rendered necessary that the pages should be cut, in order to discover the subordinate titles or subjects of the "Information." We wish the learned editor would take the hint thus offered, and increase the usefulness of his useful periodical by acting upon it. First, we could wish that he would give, in the table of contents, the title or subject of each separate article. Secondly, we should be glad to see more news of what is doing in the botanical world; and for this we should be well content to lose any quantity of descriptions of species. The four Nos. of the 'London Journal of Botany,' now before us, contain 160 pages of letter-press, equal to about 100 of the large pages of the 'Phytologist.' Of these 160 pages no less than 128 are devoted to three articles, the object of which is to describe species, and all three of which are still only portions or continuations of longer articles on the same subjects. This is, in truth, printing books in fragments, under the cover and



title of a monthly Journal. The three articles are important contributions to science, undoubtedly of high merit in themselves, and include only matters proper and necessary to be recorded. But nevertheless, we submit, they are not the kind of articles which are looked for by subscribers to a periodical. A good description of the Plants of Van Diemen's Land, for example, in a volume or series of volumes, as a distinct work, would be now a very valuable contribution to the literature of botany; but broken up into incomplete fragments, detached from each other by the miscellanies of a periodical, the list appears in a most inconvenient form itself, and seems greatly out of place. We give these hints in a spirit of friendliness to the 'London Journal,' which we would gladly see rendered as much as possible a full and undiluted Journal of botany: at present, it is a Miscellany (the original title) of high value, but scarcely a Journal. Among the "Botanical Information" in Number 69 are some items of intelligence which will have interest for the devotee of British botany. We are there assured that the Calamagrostis stricta from Oakmere, Cheshire, “is identical with the Forfarshire plant, found by the late Mr. G. Don," and "quite distinct from C. lapponica, of which the only British station is in the county of Antrim, Ireland." By some inadvertence (arising, we understand, from the hasty inspection of an imperfect specimen), Mr. Hussey's discovery of Phalaris paradoxa, "in a field, near Swanage, Dorset," is announced for another species, or rather genus, the Alopecurus utriculatus, placed by Linneus under the genus Phalaris. The two grasses resemble each other in their peculiarly inflated sheaths or bases of the leaves, and when the upper portion of the dense panicle of Phalaris paradoxa happens to be lost by breaking off, there is truly a close eye-sight resemblance between them, dissimilar as they are found to be on closer examination of the flowers (see Phytol. ii. 961). The discovery of Simethis bicolor (Kunth) in Hampshire, and of Allium sphærocephalum (Linn.) near Bristol, were announced simultaneously in the Phytologist' (see Phytol. ii. pp. 926 and 961). The other British plant mentioned is the Trifolium strictum (Linn.), discovered in two localities in Cornwall, by the Rev. C. A. Johns; from whose pen there is an interesting note on this one along with other small leguminose plants of that county.

[ocr errors]

Dr. Planchon's article on the Linacea is elaborately worked out, and is rendered somewhat remarkable by the addition of a large table in which the geographical distribution of the species is shown under

various conditions of latitude and longitude, and of botanical and geographical grouping, in an ingenious and comprehensive manner, and which must have demanded considerable patience and knowledge in the author of the paper.



Monday, Dec. 6th, 1847.—Mr. George Lawson, President, in the chair.

Mr. Jackson presented for examination specimens of the following plants that had been sent him for the Association, by Mr. Alexander Croall, and some interesting notes by Mr. Croall on the various species were read.

Pinguicula alpina, L. From the Moors of Rose-haugh, in Rossshire. From Mr. Croall's note accompanying the specimen, it would appear that this very rare and interesting plant is on the point of extermination, in consequence of the progress of cultivation in the district where it grows.

Bartramidula Wilsoni, Bruch & Schimper. From the head of Glen Dole, Clova, Forfarshire (see Phytol. ii. 1017).

Gymnostomum Donianum, Sm. From Cawdor burn, Nairnshire. Placodium plumbeum, Ach.


From trees in Cawdor wood, Nairn

Mr. Lawson exhibited specimens of Cyphella muscigena, Fr. (determined by the Rev. M. J. Berkeley), from the Den of Mains, and Mr. Ogilvie produced several lichens from the same locality.

The following botanical papers were read :

1. Account of a botanical excursion to the Reeky Linn, by Mr. William Jackson. Amongst the plants found by Mr. J. in the immediate vicinity of the Falls, occur the following: Bryum crudum, B. turbinatum, B. julaceum, B. androgynum, Hypnum commutatum, H. complanatum, H. dendroides, H. filicinum, H. atro-virens, H. pulchellum, Didymodon Bruntoni, Trichostomum aciculare, T. polyphyllum, Bartramia pomiformis, B., B. Halleriana, B. gracilis, Dicranum scoparium, Grimmia rivularis, G. apocarpa (and var. B. stricta), Neckera crispa, Cinclidotus fontinaloides, Tetraphis pellucida, Anomodon viticulosum, A. curtipendulum, Orthotrichum affine, O. crispum, Jungermannia epiphylla, J. pubescens, J. Lyoni, J. ciliaris, J. nemorosa, J. platyphylla, J. albicans, J. Blasia.

2. List of the rarer flowering plants observed in the county of Fife,

« PoprzedniaDalej »