several British Species of Hicracium. 235 



a wild or cultivated state. That it is rather a rare English plant, 

 he being not sure of having gathered it wild except " on Ched- 

 der cliffs, Somersetshire ; on Pennard castle, Glamorganshire; and 

 on rocks at Downton near Ludlow. It grows on an old wall near 

 Enfield palace, but may have been naturalized there, as that 

 was the site of Uvedale's garden/' Besides the solitary cauline 

 leaf, this plant is remarkable for its numerous, broad, rounded 

 or heart-shaped radical leaves, which are always more or less 

 wavy in the margin, especially towards their base, wliere they 

 are often deeply toothed, and their teeth. are singularly radiated 

 or divaricated, the first pair mostly pointing towards the root. 

 The Linnaean specimen shows this strongly; Mr. E. Eorster's less 

 remarkably. This accounts for Linnaeus's having quoted the 

 Tulmonaria gallica fcemina of Tabernaemontanus, la 195, (instead 

 of the figure above mentioned,) as it expresses this character 

 very strikingly, as does J. Bauhin's Pilosellce majoris, sive Pulmo- 

 naricE lutece species magis laciniata, Hist. v. 2. 1034. I have indeed 

 no doubt that these two figures of Tabernaemontanus, and con- 

 sequently those in J. Bauhin, represent mere varieties of one 

 species. 



But my murorum « is also preserved in the Linnaean herba- 

 rium, pinned to the former, with a corresponding number. Lin- 

 naeus has written on its back that " Gmelin affirms this to be the 

 H. murorum folio pilosissimo of C. Bauhin," and it is evidently 

 tjiat "very hairy variety" which Linna?us mentions, how cor- 

 rectly I know not, as never found in Sweden. This specimen of 

 Gmelin probably led him, in the 2d edition of Sp. PL, to quote 

 H. macrocaulon hirsutum folio rot unci iore, llaii Syn. 16'9, as a 

 third variety of his murorum; but in copying Ray he has written 

 lo?igiore for rotundiore, the former word agreeing with his speci- 

 men best. His own copy of the Synopsis shows he meant No. 8 

 of that work, not No. 9, and I believe he is correct as to this 



2 n 2 No. 8, 



