n.-^^-' 



f " ■ '-J" <\\ 



86 



MR. N» E. BROWN : NEW AND OLD 



It is very extraordinary that tliis very oM garden plant, whicli was intro- 

 duced into this country at least 18G years ago, shonhl liave niisi^ed recogni- 

 tion as being the typical M. y^odratum^JAun, by all monographers since tlie 

 time of Linne, wlio fonnded that species tipon 



tlie excellent fiiinre and 



description o£ ihe plant given by Dillenins, \vhich is so good that it \vould 

 scarcely seem possible to mistake any other species for the plant he repre- 

 sented. Yet all autliors since Linne have mistaken the totally different 

 M. tubercidatinn, Mill, for M. rostratum, Linn. This mistake seems Incom- 

 prehensible, as any comparison of that plant "vvith the figure and description 



given by Dillenins would at once show that they could not be the same 

 species, ihe true M. roHtratum being a very nmch stouter plnnt, with very 

 much broader and thicker leaves of a whiter green, jmd witli much fewer 

 and less conspicuous dots than the species (ilA tuherculaiuni) mistaken for it 

 has, as m:iy be seen at a glance by comparing the figure T give of J/, rostratum 

 on PL 8 with that of jlL tuberculatum ou PL 6 or with that of a flowering 



"I _ ^ 



plant of i/". tuherculatum published by Salm-Dyck under the erroneous name 

 of il/. rostratum. 



K - I ^ ■■ 



The leaves of M. rostratum vary in size and curvature in diffiM-ent s(Uisons 

 ami, T think, also in different soils, but none of tlie leaves represented on my 

 drawing (wliicli was m:ule from a living plant) are as large as the two largest 



represented by Dillenius, and they are sometimes shorter and straighter ilian 

 shown in my drawing, even on tlie same iudividuaband exactly as represented 

 on PL 9. fig. 32 by the figure of J/, qnadrifidum^ Haw., copied from a 

 drawing at Kew, labelled '' Mesemh. quadrifidum^ Haw. Received from the 

 Prince of Salm.'^ and dated ''March 22nd, 1825," which is certainly identical 

 with il/. rostratum^ Linn, ; for the very same growth of ]\f. rostratvw^ 



represented on the right-liand bottom corner of PL 8? ^vith curve<l leaves 

 drawn in August 1917 after a damp sunless season, became in August 1918 

 after a drier and sunnier season exactly like the figure of tvpical M, quadri- 

 ftdum on PL 9. fig. 32. From all this, I am inclined to believe that neither 



■ I 



Haworth nor subsequent authors can have compared either M. tuhercidatum 

 or 2L quadrijidum with the figure of M. rostratum given by Dillenius^ or 

 they could scarcely help recognising that M. tuhercidatvm^ which they have 

 considered to be M. rostratum, was not that species ; whilst 7IA quadrifdum 

 was specifically identical with it, as may be seen from tlie copy of the 

 drawling at Kew, together with a comparison of the above descri})tion with 



the following combined translation of the descriptions given by Haworlh of 

 AL quadrifidum :— Nearly stemless or steins of old plants 2—1 in. (5-10 cm.) 

 long, decumbent, stout (about 7 mm. thick according to the Kew drawingj, 

 branching. Branches very short,, clustered. Leaves half-cylindric at tlie 

 base, trigonous and very obtuse at the apex (according to the dra^ving, 

 5^-fi cm. long, about 10-12 mm. broad and 8 mm, thick at the base and 

 nearly as thick at the apex, flat on the upper side and there gradually 



