GENERA FUMARIA AND RUPICAPNOS. 315 
than in the type; and the same peculiar features are recognized by 
Haussknecht in his diagnosis of F. Vaillantii var. indica. Like his 
predecessor, however, Haussknecht does not seem to have remarked the 
characteristic corolla or to have closely examined the fruits. 
It is evident from their labels that some more recent Indian collectors have 
hesitated what name to apply to this plant, and Aitchison, who found it a 
common weed on the Afghan frontier, refers it to F. officinalis, seemingly 
distinguishing it from F. Vaillantii, which he collected as a rare species in 
the Kurrum Valley. 
F. indica is remarkable for its great altitudinal range, extending from the 
lowland Ganges basin to at least 9000 ft. in the N.W. Himalayas. As might 
be expected, examples obtained in the warm regions differ considerably from 
montane specimens, The form of the plains is usually a large, robust plant, 
with long leaf-segments, giving it a fennel-like aspect, and frequently 
elongate pedicels. The hill-plant is naturally dwarfer, and shows relatively 
small leaves, with thicker and somewhat channelled segments. It also has 
commonly very short and thick pedicels, much exceeded by the bracts, rather 
finer flowers, and probably relatively larger sepals. As these differences are 
such as would be expected to arise solely from the varied environment, the 
mountain plant has been distinguished merely as a form. 
43. FUMARIA VariLLANTII, Loiseleur in Desvaux, Journ. Bot. ii. 358 (1809), 
et Notice, 102 (1810) ; Hamm. Mon. 14 (1857) ; Haussk. in Flora, 
lvi. 411 & 441 (1873) ; Pugsley, Fum. in Brit. 66 (1912). F. Camerarii, 
Bubani, Fl. Pyr. iii. 281 (1901). 
Icones. Vaillant, Bot. Paris, tab. 10. fig. 6 ; Sturm, Deutschl. FI. i. 62, 
tab. 15; Reichb. Icon. Fl. Germ. iii. tab. 1. fig. 4452; Hamm. l.c. tab. i 
(f. sepalis latioribus) ; Clavaud, Fl. Gironde, Pl. 4. fig. 3. 
Exsice. Billot, Fl. G. & G. No. 215 bis! Schultz, Herb. Norm. No. 414! 
Fl. Exsiec. Carniol. No. 2871! 
Hammar's diagnosis of this s; ecies is fairly satisfactory, but he does not 
seem to have appreciated the sparse and long-petioled foliage characteristic 
of the typical form, which was noticed by the older botanists Vaillant and 
Loiseleur. It is possible that his description was partly based on examples 
of the variety Chavinii, which, judging from British herbaria, appears to be 
the prevalent if not the only form growing in Scandinavia. 
In addition to its omission to emphasize the slender habit and bipinnatisect 
leaves peculiar to typical F. Vaillantii, the Monograph is inaccurate respecting 
the sepals, whieh are usually lanceolate instead of subrotund-ovate, and 
frequently persistent on the young fruit rather than caducous. The flowers 
of the typical form are normally of a purplish-pink colour; and the 
ascending spur of the upper petal is a characteristic feature in this species, as 
202 
