that the two ought perhaps to be considered sufficiently 
distinct, on cultural grounds, to be recognised as separ- 
able varieties. This position, as a matter of fact, was 
conceded to 7. chinensis by the late Dr. Regel when he 
published the short synopsis of the genus 7rollius in 
which he reduced Bunge’s species to 7: asiaticus. But 
it should be realised that Regel’s treatment, though it has 
been generally accepted and even extended by English 
botanists—since they have merged 7. chinensis uncon- 
ditionally in 7. asiaticus—has not been uniformly adopted. 
On the contrary, Mr. Komarov, who is entitled from his 
field experience to speak with an authority as great as 
that of Regel or of Bunge himself, takes a very different 
view. Regel’s primary subdivision of the genus 7rollius 
is based upon the number of sepals in the flower. Under 
this system he is able to treat 7. chinensis as a variety of 
T. asiaticus, while another very similar Globe Flower, 
T. Ledebourii, Reichb., falls within another group of 
species. Komarov, however, while agreeing with Regel 
that T. asiaticus and 7. Ledebourii are distinct, reduces 
T. chinensis to the latter, not the former species. Finally, 
in the recent revision of the Eastern Asiatic species of 
Trollius by Messrs. Finet and Gagnepain, these careful 
and distinguished authors, while they reduce 7. Ledebouriz 
to Tf. patulus, Salisb., accord specific rank both to 
YT. asiaticus and T. chinensis. Such diversity of opinion, 
on the part of authorities so competent as those now 
quoted, affords intrinsic evidence as to the difficulty 
there is in finding within this genus characters that may 
be relied upon as crucial in the delimitation of its species, 
and, without rendering it necessary to accept the opinion 
of Finet and Gagnepain as regards the position of 7. Lede- 
hourti, suggests the desirability of adopting their matured 
judgment as regards 7. chinensis, a judgment which is in 
accord with the instinct of the cultivator. The original 
description of 7. chinensis which Bunge has provided is, it 
may be remarked in passing, quite insufficient to help us 
in so critical a question as the position of his plant with 
relation to its nearest allies. Fortunately, however, it is 
sufficient to enable us to decide that the plant now 
figured is the one he had in view. It was described by 
him from dried flowers collected in ‘ Schan-ssi,’ where 
