NOTES ON "THE FLORA OF DUMFRIESSHIRE" 247 



interest. Take Ranunculus trichophyllus for example. How 

 did Dr. Singer name this in 1843? I n that 7 ear the fi rst 

 edition of Professor Babington's "Manual" was published; and 

 there no mention of such a plant as trichophyllus is to be 

 found, nor is it in Lindley's "Synopsis" (1828), nor in 

 Hooker's " British Flora "(1835), though it certainly appeared 

 under Batrachium pantothrix in Gray's " Nat. Arrangement " 

 (1821). But a better example is CEnantJie piuipinelloides, 

 Linn. I venture to say that neither Mr. Stevens, nor Dr. 

 Graham, nor Professor J. H. Balfour, at tlie dates given, knew 

 this plant. Not only that, but the specimens were sent to Mr. 

 Watson from Dumfries as " GZnanthe peucedanifolia" by both 

 Dr. Balfour and Dr. G. M'Nab, and in all cases they were 

 simply Lachenalii. CE. pimpinelloides has been recorded from 

 Perth, but I believe from no other Scotch county. 



Surely the varieties of Caltha palustri s are not so common 

 as not to need localities being appended to them ? 



Sagina siibulata. The note on this species is curious. Surely at the 

 British Museum it would be no difficult matter to determine 

 what the specimen referred to really was. Judging by other 

 naming of Dumfries specimens, I should prefer the alternative 

 name. 



Surely under Ononis redinata the full locality might have been 

 given from the " New Botanist's Guide." 



Lathyrus palustris. The only Scottish record that is at all localised 

 is that of " Galloway," and this bare fact is all that the " Flora " 

 has to tell us about it ; yet Hooker in " Brit. Flora," ed. 3 

 (1835), g ives " Galloway, Scotland, Mr. Mackay." (Watson, 

 overlooking this, says in the " Cybele Brit." : " Hooker gives it in 

 the 4th and 5th editions without authority.") I suppose this 

 would be Mr. J. T. Mackay, and if so, his plants are at 

 Dublin (" Index British Botanists "), and at least a search 

 might have been made among them for so interesting a plant. 

 In 1830 Hooker remarks : " Scarcely indigenous to Scotland, 

 though mentioned by Lightfoot." There is no reason why it 

 should not occur in Scotland, as it reaches to 70 in Norway, 

 and to Dalarne and Gefleborg in Sweden, and is generally dis- 

 tributed over Finland to 68 N. lat. 



L. maritimus. How can any one attempt to verify such a record as 

 that given ; i.e. no locality at all. 



Potentilla suberecta, Zimm. Why given as a species ? (this is scarcely 

 up to the preface) ; and, Why does it require confirmation ? It 



