518 MR. C. BUCKNALL: A REVISION 
oblongis acutis in petiolum decurrentibus ; superioribus ovatis subacuminatis 
sessilibus, calycis sub-5-partiti laciniis lanceolatis aeutiuseulis, corollæ lobis 
semiorbiculatis erectis, appendicibus filamentisque antheras superantibus, 
stylo infra apicem,infracto, Hab. in provinciis caucasicis (in tractu Suwant 
provine, Taliisch), alt. 666 hexap. (Hohenack.).” The peculiar character of 
the bent style is here given for the first time. It is frequently found in 
S. peregrinum, and more rarely in S. asperum and in a few other xpecies. 
Sprengel’s description, which is very meagre and doubtfully applicable to 
this species, must here be given on account of the use made of it by 
De Candolle in the ‘Prodromus? “$S. caule ramoso, nudiusculo, foliis 
inferioribus oblongis longe petiolatis hirsutis, superioribus ovatis basi in- 
æqualibus sessilibus glabriuseulis, calycibus 5-partibus villosis. Podolia.” 
Tt will be seen that there is nothing in this description to identify it with 
S. peregrinum, and the expression “ сапе nudiusculo ” is distinetly against it. 
The locality, Podolia, is a long way from the area of S. peregrinum, and, 
except as a eultivated plant, it is most unlikely that it would be found there. 
The probability is that Sprengel's plant is one of the S. officinale group, 
perhaps 5. tanaicense, Steven, as is, indeed, suggested by Steven himself, with 
regard to both Sprengel’s and De Candolle’s descriptions. 
Unfortunately, De Candolle took this as the basis of his deseripiion in the 
* Prodromus, instead of Ledebour's deseription, and supplemented it by 
charaeters taken from a specimen sent to him by Dr. Fiseher from the 
Dorpat garden, the origin of which was presumably the provinee of Talyseh. 
Having seen this specimen, I have no doubt that it is true S. peregrinum, but 
not sufficiently complete to furnish a good description. The * Prodromus’ 
diagnosis is as follows :—© 5, peregrinum (Ledeb. ex Spreng. Syst. i. p. 563) 
caule glabriuseulo ramoso nudiusculo, foliis pilis setisque rarioribus puberulis 
inferioribus longe petiolatis ovatis oblongisve subacutis, superioribus sessilibus 
ovato-acuminatis basi insequalibus, racemis laxifloris, calyce sub-5-partito, 
hispidulo lobis laneeolatis post anthesin basi latioribus et divergentibus, 
corolla infundibuliformi calyce duplo longiore, appendicibus lineari-attenuatis, 
obtusis, stamina superantibus. 
“ In Podolià (Spreng.), ad Suwant alt. 4000 p. (Hohen. pl. per prov. Talysch, 
p. 77). Folia radic. limbo 4 poll. longo in spec. super. 1-13 poll. longa. 
Flores 6 lin. longi. Calyx fructifer pedicello duplo longior. Сог. purpuree ? 
glabrae. Antherz utrinque emarginate filamento breviores. Affinis S. cau 
сазїсо sed calyx diversus. (Alph. DC. v. spec. ex h. Dorpat. a el. Fisch. 
comm. et descripsit.) ” 
Mention has already been made of the inapplicability of Sprengel’s term 
“nudiusculo” to the stem of this plant, and the same must be said of the 
term “ olabriusculo,” as the stem is generally rather densely hispid. Other 
points in which De Candolle’s description is misleading are: the small size 
