(1

Nov. 1/ 1855/ I have most carefully on gone over the Loudon Catalogue of 1853 & I find there are 1445 phanerom plants consider as species, I count those in Italics, which are only thought to be naturalised, Now these belong to 503 genera: hence each genus has 503/1445 (2.87 (a Back of Page.)

But for all my calculations I exclude

Rubus 4 Rosa 14 [=] 18

[illeg] 18 Hieracium 24 Salix 32 Carex 61 [=] 135 species. (a Back of Page)} These five genera are excluded either on account of the species being so very doubtful & on account of the number of species of carex which wd vitiate average.

Again these 262 genera with single species so far calculating, the averages of those genera which have close species those genera & species must be excluded: hence it stands thus these will have to be subtracted 5 + 262 = 267 genera

& 135 + 262 = 397 species

503 [-] 267 [=] 236)

1445 [-] 397 [=] 1048 (4.44

So that those genera (excluding the five genera) which have more than one species have on average 4.44 species, which is standard of comparison.

Now Mr Watson has marked 46 genera having either one or more (the 46 had 69 species thus characterized) species still remain more or less unsettled, having been cut away from other species of late. Now these 46 genera have on average 8.60 species; so that these unsettled forms certainly occur in the larger genera.— These species come under Mr. Watson (1' Category). — I shd state that if the 5 genera had not been excluded the result wd have been more striking.

[1v]

The average of all the species & genera, if only the five genera with the 135 species be excluded is as follows [calculations not transcribed]

In the L. Catalogue there are 108 species in italics, which means that "they are thought to be naturalised", & these shd perhaps, be removed to obtain standard. There will also be 30 genera 28 with 1 nat. species & 2 genera with 2— nat species be wholly removed. Moreover 18 genera then come to have only 1 species for the standard, when genera with 2 close species are considered. The five genera being removed as above, we have

genera 498 [-] naturalised 30 [=] 468

species 1310 [-] 108 [=] 1202 [÷] 468 [=] 2.56 will be the standard instead of 2.63, so standard actually less.

When we did not consider naturalised plants there were 262 genera with single species, 28 (out of the 30) of these are removed above, so we have to remove from the 468 genera (262 - 28), but then we have stated that we have to add the genera, by thus removing the naturalised plants 18, so the final will be 468 - (262 - 28) + 18 = 252

468 [-] 252 [=] 216

1202 [-] 252 [=] 950 (4.39, The standard being, when those reported naturalised plants are left in being 4.44

This 1/2 page refers exclusively to naturalised plants, & these being left out makes calc results only more striking. —

(2

(1st Category)

London Catalogue, marked by Mr Watson Oct 11. / 55 /, with three Categories of close species & varieties. First, in the list, those genera with species which still remain, more or less, unsettled". (see sentence, on "Marginal Mark") marked by Mr Watson with (—). —but have been thought more by some authorities to be species varieties. Of all 3 Categories these are the most probably true species, (& not one wd be doubtful of the hair splitters.) Subtracting Rosa Rubus, Hieracium Salix & Carex. (for reasons often before given.

[List not transcribed]

[2v]

If any Botanist were to object & say but these 69 forms are not true species, but are only varieties, then the 69 wd have to be subtracted from the 396 (& likewise the four genera which wd then contain only 1 species) & yet the average of the genera, (containing on this view 69 (strong) varieties,) would be 7.69, & the standard of comparison would be rather lower, for the 69 wd have to be subtracted from whole Flora. —

(3

October /1855/ Genera in London Catalogue having varieties appended to them, but which have been thought by some Botanists to be true species. Certain varieties which have never been thought to be species, Mr. W. has excluded in M. S. This list will form the 2d. Category of Mr Watson.

Second category [List not transcribed]

(3bis

[List not transcribed]

Hence these 111 genera, with 195 varieties (which vars have been thought by some Botanists to be species, having 575, have on average 5.18 species each. The standard being (Rosa, — Carex excluded) 2.63.

But these 195 varieties have been considered by some few botanists as species, which will give according to their views another standard of comparison. (always excluding Rosa — Carex) Then the numbers will be

Genera 503 - 5 = 498 / the species 1445 + 195 - 135 = 1505

But if these vars, of the Catalogue are not to be considered as species those genera, which have single species must be excluded. We have before seen that there are 262 genera with single species, but of these 18 have vars, as in list above, which we are now considering as species therefore 262 - 18 = 244 genera & species have to be subtracted to give the standard

498 [-] 244 [=] 254

1505 [-] 244 [=] 1261 (4.96 average which will be the standard of those genera which have more than 1 species in the view of those Botanists who look at the vars of Catalogue, as species but then the 111 genera above, which have in Catalogue 575 species, will have 575 + 195 = 770 species, & the 111/770 (6.93) 111 genera will have each on average 6.93 species, considerably above the standard of 4.96

(4

Mr Watson 3d. Category consist of Varieties (species of one or more authors) taken from Babington Flora 4th. Edit (N B some are vars in Babington & some species) which are mostly slighter varieties, with exceptions, than those in list, & which we have considered under the last Category

[List not transcribed]

So that in this small Category of 23 genera with varieties, which extremely few Botanist consider is species, these genera contain on average 6.34, the standard of comparison being 2.63

(If these varieties are considered as species, then as on back of Page 3, the standard will be raised, but then the 23 genera will also have a greater average, considerably more in proportion.)