[ 491 ] 



XXXIII. Extracts from the Minute-Book of the Linnean Society of 



London. 

 J841. 

 March 16. ReAD a "Letter from Joseph Woods, Esq., F.L.S., to Mr. Richard 

 Kippist, on Crepis biennis and Barkhausia taraxacifolia." 



Mr. Woods is of opinion that the plant described by Sir James 

 Smith in the 'English Flora' and 'English Botany,' by Sir W. J. 

 Hooker in the 'British Flora,' by Mr. Babington in the Society's 

 'Transactions,' vol. xvii. p. 456, and by Mr. Mackay in his 'Irish 

 Flora,' as Crepis biennis, is in reality Barkhausia taraxacifolia, distin- 

 guished especially by the long beak of its achenia, while those of Cre- 

 pis biennis are, in the words of Gaud in, " neutiquam attenuata." The 

 stem of Crepis biennis is also less branched and more leafy than that 

 oi -Barkhausia taraxacifolia, the latter rarely producing a leaf except 

 where there is a branch. Mr. Woods adds, that it is almost certain 

 that we have the two species in England, though the difference has 

 not been noticed. Crepis biennis grows in Kent and Surrey. 



In a "Note" appended to Mr. Woods's letter, Mr. Kippist states 

 that the authentic Linnean specimens of Crepis biennis from Scania, 

 although too young to have ripe seeds, appear to confirm Mr. Woods's 

 idea, the pappus being quite sessile even in those most advanced, and 

 the stem moderately branched in the upper part, and very leafy be- 

 low. The two specimens in the Smithian herbarium, one from Mr. 

 Crowe's garden and the other from Mr. Rose's herbarium, have the 

 stem much branched, and the pappus apparently sessile, but the ache- 

 nia are immature. 



The only developed specimen in Mr. Winch's herbarium is from 

 Dartford in Kent, and has the pappus very decidedly stalked, the 

 stem much branched in the upper part, and only a few scattered 

 leaves in the lower, a branch being produced from the axilla of each 

 cauline leaf with the exception of one or two of the lowermost. Other 



