180 MR. MILLER CHRISTY ON 
dimorphic heterostyled flowers) was so little understood at the 
time that their conclusions are of very small value. 
Very early in this discussion, on February 10th, 1842, the 
Rev. J. E. Leefe was led to call the attention of the Botanical 
Society of Edinburgh to the Oxlips found in the woods round 
Saffron Walden *; but he failed to detect the fact that these 
were really the true P. elatior of Jacquin, which had not then 
been recognized in Britain. It was left for a man better known 
as an entomologist and an ornithologist (namely, the late Henry 
Doubleday, of Epping) to point out to English botanists the 
occurrence in this country of the true Primula elatior of Jacquin; 
and to him belongs the credit for removing the confusion which 
had so long existed. Having been accustomed to visit his first- 
cousin, the late Richard Smith, at Great Bardfield, Essex, he had 
observed that the Oxlips he found growing abundantly around 
that place were quite distinet from those he was accustomed to 
meet with now and then around his home at Epping and else- 
where; and, on April 18th, 1842, having read the discussion 
then raging (especially, it appears, the remarks of *S.") he 
communicated to the Botanical Society of London, through his 
brother Edward (then an officer of the British Museum), his 
belief that the so-called “P. elatior ” of British botanists was 
merely a hybrid between the Primrose and the Cowslip ; that it 
was quite distinct from the P. elatior of Jacquin ; that the latter 
was a good species; and that the Oxlips he had observed at 
Great Bardfield were of that species f. Two days later, he ex 
pressed the same views in a letter to his friend the late Edward 
Newman (then editor of the * Phytologist ’), to whom he sent spe 
cimens 3. The correctness of his view that the Bardfield plant wês 
distinct from the Primula elatior of all previous British writers, 
but identical with the Primula elatior of Jacquin and other 
Continental writers, was quickly demonstrated by the published 
opinions of H. C. Watson§, Edward Forster|l, G.S. Gibson, 
* See ‘Phytologist, vol. i. p. 191, and Ann. Nat. Hist. vol. ix. p. 153. He 
says, however, that these Oxlips do not agree with the figure in ‘ English 
Botany,’ which is correct in fact (see p. 178, note), but incorrect if he meant 
(as appears to be the case) that the figure represented another species. 
t Ann. Nat. Hist. vol. ix. p. 515. 
1 ‘ Phytologist,’ vol. i. p. 204. 
§ Op. cit. vol. i. pp. 232 & 1002; vol. ii. p. 527. 
|. Op. cit. vol. i. p. 974. 
“| Op. cit. vol. i. p. 996. 
