pdf 25 MB - BSBI Archive

WHAT IS THE THAMES-SIDE BRASSICaV 347
establisbed in Bi-itain, and whicli has never been found in Surrey by
me, although a resident for thirty years and upwards.
In the original ' Botanist's Guide ' of 1805 Mr. Borrer wrote of the
plant thus :— " Brassica Napus ? What appears a remarkable va-
riety of tliis species, with erect siliquse and bristly leafstalks, grows
about the Thames at Hampton and Kew." Thirty years later, in the
' New Botanist's Guide,' we find the plant reported by Mr. Winch
under a different name, thus : —
" Brasuca campastris. By the Thames,
near Hampton, abundantly, 1839." In tlie Supplement to the latter
work, dated 1837, the same plant was reported on my own observa-
tion thus :— " Brassica campestris. A plant presumed to be this
species, grows in plenty on the sides of the Thames for several miles,
both above and below Dittoii." This description would include the
locality of " Hampton," previously recorded by the two older botanists
named. I turn now to records of recent date.
The ' Flora of Surrey ' is dated in 1863 ; being a posthumous work,
edited from materials left' by Mr. J. D. Salmon, and saved to science
through tjie judicious liberality of Mr. W. V\ . Saunders. Doubtless
the editor would feel unwilling to alter the notes of localities which
had been collected by Mr. Salmon, unless on the clearest evidence of
errors. Hence, probably, the confusing inconsistency in the Flora
named, where this one Thames-side Brassica comes twice, as if two
different species, and under two different specific names. It is theie
entered secondly as Napus, on the authority of Mr. J. T. Syme and
Mr. J. S. Mill, having been also given firstly as campestris from my
own notes to the editor.
In 1869 we have the ' Flora of Middlesex,' by Trimeu and Dyer, a
work highly creditable to its authors. Unfortunately, in their attempt
to set us right about this plant, they have adopted the error and re-
jected the truth. They treat the species as certainly i\'«/'2« ; correct
the supposed blunder of Winch in calling it campestris ; ignore my own
record of this latter plant ia the Supplement above quoted ; and
declare that they have not observed B. campestris in Middlesex.
As the plan of their Flora does not include descriptions, but gives only
the names of species, and as its authors state no reason for their own
reference of the plant in question to Napus instead of campestris, we
must seek elsewhere for a test of their coiTectness or otherwise in thus
deciding.
O T, 9