306 / Dan. Puzrenev’s Hifory and Defcription 
found; which, on account of thefe tubercles, has, by fome of 
thofe botanical authors who wrote foon after the reftoration of 
botany, been confidered as a diftinét fpecies. -Hence fome account 
of the plant becomes neceffary to illuftrate the fubfequent obfer- 
vations; fince, if I miftake not, fome errors relating to it have 
remained undetected for upwards of two centuries. 
- After confulting all the older authors which I have it in my power 
to refer to, | can find no one who notices the fingularity obferv- 
able in the leaves of the Anemone, prior to T'HALIUS, a phyfician 
of Northaufen in Germany; who appears to have been no inconfi- 
derable botanift, at the period when he wrote. He with great dili- 
gence made a catalogue of the plants of the Hartz, or Black Foreft, 
which was undertaken at the requeft of. CAMERARIUS, and pub- 
| lifhed by him after the death of the author, under the title of 
Sylva Hercynia, n 1588. In this work the author defcribes what he 
calls Ranunculus Martii tertium Genus Gorpr & Tract.’ This genus 
he divides into five kinds or fpecies, among which are included the 
Anemone nemorofa, and ranunculoides of LiNNæus, and the moderns, 
I have only to notice what he remarks of his Quintum Genus, of 
which, however, it is unneceffary to detail his defcription at large. 
It is fufficient to obferve, that he defcribes it as being always a /ferile 
plant, and concludes with the following characteriftic obfervation, 
which I give in his own words—“ Hoc autem præ reliquis hujus 
* ordinis generibus folia hzc peculiare obtinent, quod in dorfc 
‘ frequentibus veluti ftigmatibus, feu punétulis protuberantibus 
* fint picturata exafperataque.” Sylv. Hercyn. p. 98. 
Cafpar Baubine, in his Phytopinax, p. 320. (which with refpeét to 
many of the plants is a more correct work than the Pinax itfelf) 
comprehends this variety under the fynonyms of the Anemone nemo- 
wes ane “ Eft et qui in dorfo frequentibus punétulis protube- 
* rantibus 
