GENERA FUMARIA AND RUPICAPNOS, 235 
seeing Fries’ fine series of cultivated Fumitories at Upsala, and asa large 
proportion of his descriptions are taken from plants subsequently grown at 
Lund, he was evidently well acquainted with many of the living forms and 
his choice of the corolla-characters as the basis of generic sections cannot be 
lightly set aside. But, on the whole, the annual Fumariv seem to fall 
naturally into two rather than three large groups. So far as the small- 
flowered species are concerned there is no real diserepaney between Hammar's 
arrangement and that of Haussknecht, for the Officinales and the Angustisectie 
comprise practically the same species, one author relying on the floral 
features and the other on those of the foliage with which they are commonly 
associated. But while Hammar's sectional definitions of his Officinales, and 
also of his Agrariw, fairly cover all the species placed under them (although 
in the former the margins of the upper petal are not often truly patent), it is 
not so with his third section, Capreolate, which show marked variations in 
the corolla. As instances of this, the spreading margins of the lower petal 
in F. Bastardii, Bor. (F. media B. confusa, Hamm.) may be cited, or the 
normally obtuse upper petal of F. Gussonei, Boiss. (Pl. 9, figs. 1-3). And 
when more recently discovered plants are included, a complete series of 
transitional forms may be traced through this section, connecting F. capreo- 
lata, Linn., to which Hammar's sectional diagnosis of the corolla correctly 
applies, with the species of the section Agrarir. At the same time, neither 
the Agrariw nor the Capreolate can be said to be similarly connected with 
the Officinales. 
It may thus be argued, if the floral characters alone are considered, that 
the plants placed by Hammar in his section Capreolate differ from the 
Agrarie in that the development of the margins of their outer petals is more 
or less arrested. In some other important features, such as size of flower and 
character of foliage, most of the Capreolate approximate to the Agrarian 
species and are plainly different from the Officinales or Parviflore. The 
fruiting characters cannot be similarly contrasted, for while a certain degree 
of uniformity prevails among the fruits of the Agrariw, which are usually 
large and coarsely rugose, and also to a less extent among the Offcinales, 
where they are very rarely large, coarsely rugose, or yet quite smooth, in 
the Capreolate of Hammar this organ is eminently variable, being in some 
species quite small and perfectly smooth, in others larger than in some 
Agrarian species or distinctly rugose. As the variations of the fruit in 
Hammar’s Capreolate, therefore, give little indication of any group-affinity, 
it seems safest to rely chiefly on the foliage and the flowers, and to regard 
the section as related to the Agrariv rather than a distinct group equal 
in rank to these and the Officinales or Parviflore. 
The contention for two natural groups—G@randijlora or Latisectw and 
Parviflora or Angustisecte—is further supported by the geographical 
distribution of the species. The Agrarie, especially F. agraria and 
x» 
