THE NINTH EDITION OF THE LONDON CATALOGUE 51 



(Jord.), which is type acris, ft vulgatns (Jord.), 7 Steveni 

 (Andrj.), and 8 pumilus, Wahl. An authority for Bnda 

 rupcstris will be found in the " Trans. Bot. Soc. Edin." for 

 1894. Is there really any specific difference between 

 Ranunculus pseudo-fluitans and R. pcltatus, var. penicillatus ? 



With regard to the specific rank of Bromus racemosus 

 and B. commutatus, Professor Hackel says, after seeing a 

 large series of specimens which I sent him, that he now 

 considers that one is only a variety of the other, so that 

 he would write B. racemosus, Linn., and var. commutatus 

 (Schrad). 



When referring to the substitution of modern names in 

 the place of the old Linnean names, and protesting as I did 

 against it, I said that the only excuse which could be urged 

 in favour of the plan was that a greater degree of accuracy of 

 identification was supposed to be attained. We have, however, 

 one example in the Catalogue where a name to which we were 

 getting accustomed has been ruthlessly changed for an older 

 one, but on what grounds, either of priority or greater ac- 

 curacy of definition, I am unable to imagine. I allude to 

 the plant which was once well known as Lepidium SmitJiii, 

 but which in the eighth edition of the Catalogue was called 

 L. heterophyllum^ Benth., var. canescens, Gren. et Godr. Now 

 it has been altered to L. Jiirtum, Sm. (with a county census 

 of 88 1 ), and a var. canescens which is attributed to Gren. et 

 Godr., but for which they are certainly not responsible 

 they knew far too much of the French flora to unite 

 Bentham's L. keterophyllum and De Candolle's L. Jiirtum. 

 What is Smith's L. Jiirtum ? In the " Compendium " it is 

 described as having hairy fruits ("siliculis hirtis"), which is just 

 what L. JietcropJiyllum, var. L. SmitJiii, has not. It is true 

 that in " English Botany " Smith described a Tlilaspi Jiirtum 

 which is evidently figured from a specimen of L. SmitJiii ; 

 but he has added a drawing of fruits covered with hairs 

 which certainly never occurred on L. SmitJiii. Smith 

 evidently did not know the essential differences between the 



1 Even if for one moment we assume that the nomenclature is correct, the 

 census number is wrong : the type plant (if Mr. N. E. Brown be correct in identi- 

 fying the Hants plant with Bentham's L. heterophyllum) is only known for one 

 county. The 88 should follow the varietal name, which, if the present mode of 

 nomenclature be adhered to, requires the author's name to be bracketed. 



