234 MR. H, W. PUGSLEY : A REVISION OF THE 
CLASSIFICATION OF THE GENUS FUMARIA. 
In this Revision X. spicata, Linn. and its allies are omitted as they seem 
best referred to a separate genus Platycapnos, Bernhardi in ‘Linnea,’ viii. 
471 (1833) ; and Discoeapnos, Cham. & Schlecht. in * Linnea,’ i. 569 (1826), 
is similarly excluded. 
The genus Fumaria, thus restricted, has been commonly regarded as 
comprising two sections, viz. :—(1) Petrocapnos, Cosson & Durieu in Bull. 
Soc. Bot. France, ii. 305 (1855), et Cosson, Comp. Fl. Atlant. ii. 80 (1883- 
1887) ; (=Rupicapnos, Pomel, Mat. Fl. Atlant. 16 (1860), et Nouv. Mat. Fl. 
Atlant. i. 240 (1874), as a genus) ; in which the species are usually perennial, 
nearly stemless, with leaves mostly radical, a subcorymbose inflorescence, and 
strongly tubercular-rugose fruits: and (2) Spherocapnos, DC. Syst. Nat. 
Veg. ii. 131 (1821) ; Cosson, Comp. Fl. Atlant. ii. 83 (1883-1887) ; consisting 
of the annual species, with elongate stems, cauline leaves, racemose flowers, 
and generally less tubercular fruits. 
It was at first intended that this paper should deal only with the second 
of these sections, as indicated in the notice read before the Society on the 
3rd May, 1917; but subsequently, on the expressed wish of the Council, an 
extension was decided upon in order to complete a review of the whole genus. 
An examination of the species of Petrocapnos, however, revealed that in 
addition to the points of distinction noted by Cosson and Pomel, there are 
other important floral and fruiting characters by which they may be separated 
as a group from the annual Fumarie, and it is consequently felt essential to 
‘follow Pomel in treating them as a distinct genus. An account of these 
plants follows that of the true Fumitories. 
With this view the genus Fumaria becomes synonymous with the section 
Sphwrocapnos, DC., and the classification followed is that already adopted for 
the British species, coinciding practically with that of Haussknecht’s Revision 
in ‘Flora, lvi. (1873), with an emendation of the sequence of the subdivisions. 
It is only after considerable hesitation that this system has been preferred to 
that of the more finished Monograph of Hammar, and it is readily admitted 
that Haussknecht’s two primary divisions of Latisecter and Angustisecte are 
unsatisfactory until their definitions are enlarged by the addition of floral 
characters and they become converted into Grandiflora and Parviflora 
respectively. A third classification, relying on the curvature of the fruiting 
pedicel or its absence as a primary basis of segregation, which was adopted 
by Boissier in the ‘Flora Orientalis’ owing to the ready obliteration of the 
corolla-characters in exsiccata, seems unreliable owing to the inconstancy 
of the recurved pedicel in the species in which it is commonly seen, and 
unnatural in its association of plants sometimes widely divergent in other 
characters. 
It will be remembered that Hammar was led to write his Monograph from 
