22 
of the fronds or segments; the presence or absence, or character of 
the tomentum; or the color, size and character of the scales) the 
vahie of which I am now led to question more seriously than ever. 
Such characters, it seems to me, can only be taken in connection with 
others of a more reliable nature, and must occupy a secondary place 
in any description. 
Some of Mr. Pringle's specimens run very close to C, scariosa, and 
I suspect fairly represent that species as reported from Mexico; 
others are inseparable from C elegans, Desv., and others again from 
myriophylla. All of these differences are clearly due to the different 
conditions under which the different plants grew. 
In reply to my inquiries in this direction, Mr, Pringle wrote: 
**It (this species) is at home only in limestone ledges, in dryest 
situations where there is least soil * short and rigid,' as you note, and 
in shaded places with more earth, or richer mould * taller and more 
lax.' But it is all one species/' 
The series is identical with that previously collected in the Hua- 
chuca Mis. by Mr. and Mrs. Lemmon, which Prof. Eaton (correctly 
as I think) referred to C. myriophylla, with the exception that Mr. 
Pringle's plants vary more in the direction of C. elegans, Desv., and 
some of them are more densely squamose than any received from 
Lemmon,* 
One can see from these collections that Dr. Hooker acted wisely 
m writing C. elegans and C myriophylla under one name. 
The plant given in the Supplement to my Catalogue, merely as a 
matter of record for the herbarium, under the provisional name of 
C, viUosa,\% probably only a form of this species, to which it must be 
referred. 
Botrychiuin Virgtnianum, Swz., why Botrychhim Virginicumt. 
I had supposed that the correct svnonomy of the Botrychia had 
become so clearly established through the labors of Dr. Milde, as 
pomted out by Prof. Eaton and myself, that no further corrections 
Mould be necessary, but Mr. Gilbert's note in the Bulletin for July 
1S84, seems to indicate otherwise. 
The right, per se, of every one to choose whatever name best 
pleases him may be undeniable, but in practice the wisdom of exer- 
cising that right is at least questionable as not tending to that uni- 
formity so desirable in botanical science. 
If we are to pay any regard to the laws of botanical nomenclature, 
then B. Virginicum ought no longer to be tolerated as against B- 
♦Prof. Lemmon tells me that Mr. Baker refers his Huachuca Mt. plant to C. 
searwsa, but while I am inclined to believe that the very scaly forms of both Leni- 
mon's and Pringle's collections are the same as the plant from Mexico, which has 
been referred to C. scaiiosa, although I have no specimen for comparison, I think a 
more careful investigation will be needed to show that they are identical with the 
Peruvian type of that species. Prof. Eaton thinks they are not. and until such tinie 
as I can make a satisfactory investigation for myself I should defer wholly to his 
judgment. 
The large series of forms which I have received from Prof. I.emmon and Mr. 
Pringle, to both of whom I am under great obligations, has placed in my hands 
some long wished for material and I hope now shortly to finish my paper on the 
Myiiophylla-Fevdieri gxoM^ of CheiLmthes. 
