importance to be mentioned here, Eay’s “ Synopsis,’ which
was published in 1724, and Dillenius’ “ Historia Muscorum ”
in 1741. Each of these, as far as they can be identified,
included somewhere about twenty species of Fresh-Water
Algse.
The epoch commences in reality with Hudson’s “ Flora
Anglica,” the first edition of which is dated 1762, and contains
about 25 species. Then came the first Edition of Withering s
“ Arrangement of British P l a n ts ” in 1776; Lightfoot s
“ Flora Scotica” in 1777, also with 25 species; Robson’s
“ British F lo r a ” in the same year, with 26 species; the
second Edition of Hudson’s “ Flora Ang lica ” in 1778 ;
Relhan’s “ Flora Cantabrigensis ” in 1785, with 12 species;
and Sibthorp’s “ Flora Oxoniensis ” in 1794, with 7 species.
This brings us to the third Edition of With e rin g in 1796, with
38 species; followed by Abbot’s “ Flora Bedfordiensis ” in
1798, with 14 species ; and Hull’s “ British Flora ” in 1799, with
34 species. These were all the predecessors of Dillwyn, and did
not achieve much for the Fre sh -W ate r Algse until the climax
was attained by the publication of Dillwyn’s “ British Conferva}”
in 1809, with 88 species enumerated. The first Edition
of “ English B o tan y ” had already commenced in 1790, extending
to 1814, but it was not until after the appearance of
Dillwyn’s work th a t the Algse of the British Botany were
published, ultimately including about 100 species. Undoubtedly
Dillwyn was therefore the parent of a systematic study of the
British F re sh -W ate r Algse, and with him the first epoch
culminated.
The second epoch commenced well with the continuance of
“ English Botany,” and then followed several Botanists whose
influence has passed down even to our own times. Following
the example of the first epoch, we may enumerate the most important
of their works. The “ Midland Flora ” of Purto n in
1821 only includes about 14 species. Hooker’s “ Flora
Scotica” in 1821 about 39 species; Gray’s “ Arran g em en t”
in 1824, was confessedly devoted chiefly to systematic classification,
including nominally 103 British Fre sh -W ate r Algre.
Greville’s “ Flora Edinensis ” in 1824 had 50 species, the
working period for Algæ having scarcely commenced, his
“ Algæ Britannicæ ” appearing in 1830. Jones and Kingston’s
“ Flora Devoniensis ” in 1829 included but 29 species. Jo h n ston’s
“ Flora of Berwick-on-Tweed” in 1831 had 40 species.
Near this time (1883) Berkeley’s “ Gleanings of British
Algæ ” was published. The latter volumes of “ The English
F lo r a ” appeared also in 1833, under th e editorship of Sir
William Hooker, the Algæ being contributed by Dr. W. H.
Harvey, and included 160 species. This was Harvey’s first important
contribution to the History of British Algæ, which was
succeeded in 1841 by the first Edition of his “ Manual,” containing
198 fresh water species. Between these two Mackay’s
“ Flora Hibernioa ” was issued in 1836, with 87 Irish species.
These all culminated, in 1845, in the appearance of Hassall’s
“ Fresh-Water Algæ,” enumerating 297 species, exclusive of
Characeæ, Desmidiaceæ, and Diatomaceæ, thus closing the
second epoch. The time at which this latter work appeared was
an active one in British F re sh -W ate r Algæ. Ralfs was preparing
his work on Desmids, and contributing papers to the scientific
journals, notably the “ Annals of Natural History.” Dr.
Greville had commenced his “ Scottish Cryptogamie Flora ” in
1823. Harvey was at work earnestly with Marine, and of course
casually with Fresh-Water Algæ. The volume containing the
Algæ of the “ English Botany,’’ second Edition, appeared in
1844, so th a t about this time, which we distinguish as the end
of the second epoch, characterised by the publication of
Hassall’s work, there was greater promise than came to be realized
in the early p a rt of the next epoch.
I t is not. uncommon to hear observations made disparagingly
of the work with which the second epoch closed, when no
account is taken of the difficulties which had to be encountered
in preparing an illustrated work of th a t nature. I t cannot be
fair to judge it by its successors, but by its predecessors, and if
it was fairly up to the general standard at the time of its production,
th a t is all we can expect. I t must be remembered that
Ku tz in g ’s large and splendid work, the “ Tabulæ Phyoologiæ,”
was only commenced in 1846, and th a t therefore it could not be
consulted. I t is certainly to be regretted th a t in Hassall no
indication is given of the measurement of the objects figured, or