d y. 
. 202 Dr. Smitu’s Obfervations on 
it is referred. I. now perceive the impofüibility o£ deciding whether 
it may or may not be the M. aquatica exigua of Tragus; but I think 
his figure, as well as that of Lobel, much more like arven/is, and the 
figure in Fuchfius, 7. 291, is moft probably gracilis. Dillenius there- 
fore has been too heedlefs in his felection of fynonyms here as in 
many other inftances. The fpecimens he had in contemplation are 
in the Sherardian collection ; and as his error has caufed much 
trouble to following botanifts, they merit a particular defcription. 
; In the firft place we find the M. gracilis ( M. gentilis Engl. Bot. 
4d. 449), with a ticket marked, in the hand of Dillenius if I miftake not; - 
^ € M. verticillata glabra, & odore Menthe Jative. "—]t muft be remem- 
bered that by M. Sativa he means the Linnzan viridis. To ‘this 
Sherard has added: * M. hortenfi s quarta. Dod. Angl. 245. M. an- 
gufifolia glabra, odore Menthe ypicate, D. Dale. In the hop-ground 
at Bocking plentifully." 
In the fame fheet of paper with this is , Buddle’s s and Francis Dale’s 
plant, the {mall _/ativa, the leaves of which are not fmooth. It isin- 
fcribed * found by Mr. Buddle in company with Mr. Francis Dale 
fen. by the fide of the new river near the upper end of Stoke New- 
ington.” 
With them, in the fame paper, is a third fet of 3 tpi patted 
on one fheet, marked, “ obferved by Mr. Finacis Dale jun. by the © 
brook down Lordthip-lane near Stoke Newington.” This has nearly 
fmooth leaves, and does not materially differ from the firft fpecimen 
in this fheet, gracilis, The calyx is only rather more conftricted. 
. By the remark of Dillenius in the Synopfis, “ foliis glabris et an= 
guftioribus à priori (M. arvenfi) differt," it appears beyond a doubt 
the plant he intended in that article, p. 232. z. 2, was this gracilis, 
with which he confounded Buddle's fpecimen. No one would be 
3 pre: i in fuppofing a man of Dillenius’s. character and merit could 
make 
