256 ANNALS OF SCOTTISH NATURAL HISTORY 



to, although its priority is undoubted. Gansbium is, how- 

 ever, rejected by the Berlin Committee in favour of the later 

 name Erophila, which should replace Draba for this plant, if 

 the " Genera Plantarum " of Bentham and Hooker be 

 followed. 



It would have been very interesting to learn the exact 

 reasons which induced Mr. Brown to say that Polygala 

 amarella, Crantz, is doubtless the same plant as P. calcarea, 

 Schultz, since Dr. Beck, in " Fl. Nieder-Osterreich," uses it 

 for the Teesdale plant ; and he gives the reference to Crantz, 

 "St. Aust." v. 438 (sum TJicil nack dcr Beschreibung). 

 Neither Nyman nor Beck gives P. calcarea as a native of 

 Austria. Koch and Neilreich consider P. amarella, Crantz, 

 to. be P. amara, L. (i.e. the Kentish plant) ; but it does not 

 agree with the stations given by Crantz, who, it may be said, 

 describes his plant " caules ex multicipiti radice plures 

 suberecti." Mr. Brown also states " The specimens of P. 

 amara from locality i of Kerner's ' Flora Exsiccata,' No. 

 512, [are] distributed under the erroneous name of P. 

 amarella" This statement rests upon Mr. Brown's identifica- 

 tion of P. amarella, Cr., with P. amara, L. I might also 

 point out that his statement that " P. amara, Jacq., is ... 

 according to the figure given in Jacquin's " Flora Austriaca," 

 vol. v. p. 4 1 2, identical with P. amarella, Cr. is one I cannot 

 accept. The figure, although the flowers are large, does not 

 convey the idea of P. calcarea to me ; and the description 

 given by Jacquin that the stems are upright is opposed to 

 what Schultz in " Bot Zeit," 1837, distinctly says of his 

 plant, that it is prostrate. I think we must wait further 

 evidence before we replace the well-known name of P. 

 calcarea by that of P. amarella, Crantz. 



Respecting the caulescent state of Drosera intermedia, 

 noted in the " Additions and Corrections," p. v., it may be 

 well to call attention to the account of it which may be 

 found in Hull's "British Flora," 1799, where it is described 

 as " var. 3, caulescent. This is in every respect like var. I, 

 except that there is a stem which, in some instances, is full 

 two inches in length, with numerous leaves. I have always 

 found it growing with Sphagnum in moist bogs or heaths ; 

 and at first thought that the plant pushed up to a greater 



