and some of its Allies. 83 
ference to f. 9. t. xiii. Dill. is assuredly wrong; nor is there, I 
suppose, a figure of it extant. “Fila gibi splendentia,” as 
Dillenius has it, cannot agree with “scabra” in Hudson’s defi- 
nition. Furthermore, concerning this plant, which seems te 
have escaped the notice of Dillenius, I can speak with all con- 
fidence, as Mr. Hudson described it from a plant which I gave. 
him, and which, as far as I can learn, was the only one that had 
ever been found in fructification, except one other which I at 
this time have in my possession. Both these specimens I gathered 
in company with Mr. Hudson, the same morning, in one of our 
rambles among the Arvonian alps. | i coeur 
Mr. Lightfoot's description of this species, under deu name 
exilis, is characteristic, and just, as far as he, not having seen 
the fructification, could give it. 
I cannot take leave of these figures of Dillenius, so often 
quoted, without observing that, as to ibn’ s reference to f. 32. 
£. xvii. as his varietas y of L. islandicus, I think there cannot be 
a doubt of its having been an oversight of the moment, and that 
he must have meant fig. 31, which has a strong affinity to 
fig. 112. t. xxviii. Dill. which is his var. ß of the islandicus. {n+ 
deed his habitat of it, Sp. Pl. 1612, ** frequens -in sterilissimis 
collibus Sueciz," (whereas n. 32 is found on rocks only) and the 
particulars, * ramuli intus cavi, color luridus, basis rubra,” &c. 
in his description, l. c., contribute to confirm fully my conjecture. 
On a review of the discussion above, amidst all the confusion 
which presents itself, of which, I am sorry to observe, still more 
occurs in Withering's Arrangement, under the trivials lanatus and 
pubescens, we may dediice the following conclusions. 
I. Fig. 8. t. xiii. Dill, is Licurn Meder of Gmelin, Linni 
Syst. p- 1379, who defines it well in these words; * L. ramosis: 
simus erectiusculus teres inarticulatus glaber inanis nitidus infra 
M 2 nigricans 
