Page:Journal of botany, British and foreign, Volume 34 (1896).djvu/296

 272 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. Mr. Druce indeed might have contended that Horkelia should stand on the ground that the spelling in Bartling is Woljia^ a name already occupied by a genus of Scitaminea ; and it may be urged by some that, even if we accept Wolfia as the corrected spelling, the two names are too much alike for both to be maintained. Strictly speaking, however, Bartling's names are both nomlna nucla: not only is there no diagnosis of the genus, but it is placed among other " Genera monocotyledonea dubia 1. incertae sedis," and is followed by the words ** An Najadea?" If this view be accepted, the genus dates from Schleiden's citation, where it stands " Wolffia Horkel Msc. Horkeha Keichenbach." Mr. Jackson does not cite Woljia from Bartling at all, although it is the earliest occurrence of the name as applied to the lemnaceous plant. But this point I do not propose to discuss : it is certain that, had Mr. Druce known of this misspelling, he would not have omitted to refer to it. Another result of citing references at second-hand is the promul- gation of mistakes into which even the most careful are apt to fall. Mr. Jackson quotes '^Crepis succiscpfolia Tausch in Flora, ix (1828) I. Erg. 79 " ; this Mr. Druce cites as  Tausch, ' Fl.' ix (1828) " : if he had checked his reference he would have seen that  ix." is a slip for "xi." Mr. Druce may say that it is not always easy to check references, to which it may be replied that it is not incumbent on him to propose changes, and that he has no right to do so until he has taken some steps towards being sure of his ground. " Ulex GaUii, Planch., 'Ann. Sc. Nat.' (1849), p. 213, is ante- dated by U. provincialis, Le Gall, ' Fl. Morb.,' 128." Mr. Druce may plead that he has sometimes been led astray by the Index Kewensis, or by his interpretation of it ; but in this instance he has no one to blame but himself. Le Gall published his Flore du Morbihan in 1852 ; Planchon's paper, as Mr. Druce tells us, was printed in 1849 ; * how then can Le Gall's name antedate U. Gallli ? Planchon {I. c), having presumably seen the proofs, cites  Le Gall, Fl. Morbih. (inedit.)," and names the plant Gallii in compliment to Le Gall, who thought he had U. provincialis Lois. — the name under which the plant appears in his Flore. Mr. Jackson rightly says : — ^^provincialis Le Gall, Fl. Morb. 128 = Gallii " — he does not seem to have noticed Planchon's earlier citation of the name. I know not on what possible ground Mr. Druce can justify his assertion. Mr. Bennett! rightly says that  correlation of specimens as well as hunting through books" is necessary before names can be satis- factorily changed ; it would appear from Mr. Druce's action that he thinks even the books may be dispensed with. A further point of criticism is suggested by Mr. Druce's paper with regard to abbreviations and references. The former should never be so abridged as to be unintelligible or doubtful ; Mr. Jack- son's abbreviations are excellent, and it is a pity that Mr. Druce did not adopt them. But ''Herb. Br." for "Herbarium Britannicum," f Here again is an instance of insufficient citation : three volumes of the Annales bear the date 1849, but Mr. Druce does not think it worth while to specify which is referred to, although Mr. Jackson cites the number (xi). t Ann. Scott, Nat. Hist. April, 1896, 111.