426 Mr. Woops on the Species of Fedia. 
acute. This is a common plant throughout the greater part of France, and it 
is probably the var. tridentata, which is described as V. dentata by De Candolle. 
I have seen a Cornish specimen in the herbarium of Mr. Borrer; and if the 
dissections added by Dr. Hooker to the figure of F. olitoria in the Flora Londi- 
nensis belong to this plant, we must suppose it not very rare in England. 
F. pumila (fig. 18.) has the barren cells separate in the middle and con- 
tiguous at the extremities. The appearance thus obtained I suppose to be 
what is meant by the term anticé exarato of De Candolle, while the anticé um- 
bilicato of Gussone I rather refer to the small flat surface surrounded by a 
prominent rib, which forms the external peculiarity of the Pstlocele. Unfor- 
tunately, they neither of them use the other term in their original descriptions, 
and the term * umbilicate" might be applied to either appearance. The cap- 
sule of F. pumila ends in three short points, concavely truncate, which appear 
rather to be an extension of the cells than the teeth of a calyx. 
F. spherocarpa. De Candolle, not having seen specimens, adopts the de- 
scription of Gussone, perhaps with some reference to the figure in Guss. Pl. 
Rar. t. 4., which I have not seen. He expresses a doubt if it be different from 
V. pumila, but the description, “facie umbilicato," would incline me to place 
it among the Psilocele. There is one other plant belonging to that division 
of the Platycele in which the teeth of the crown are not hooked. This is 
V. trigonocarpa, a native of the neighbourhood of Constantinople. The name 
expresses its most distinguishing character. I have seen neither specimens 
nor figure. 
The species of this division, which have hooked teeth, noticed in De Can- 
dolle's Prodromus are two,—F. hamata and F. coronata. If, however, the 
V. platyloba (F. rotata of Reichenbach) do not also belong to it, I am afraid we 
can hardly consider the Selenocælæ as forming a very natural division. The 
difference between P. hamata and coronata is not very well marked by the 
description in the Prodromus, resting almost entirely on the villous mat which 
covers the bottom of the calyx in the latter species, while the former is in that 
part entirely devoid of hairs. "This is a useful distinction; but from my own 
specimens, gathered in the South of France early in the summer of 1831, I 
should describe F. hamata (fig. 19.) as having a broad margin ending in 6 
subulate teeth ; each tooth terminating in a hooked awn, with rounded inter- 
