46 Cucubalus baccifer in the Isle of Dogs. 



published in 1724. He there speaks of it as having been " ga- 

 thered in hedges in Anglesea, (Mono), by Mr. Foulkes, of 

 Llanbeder, and sent to Dr. Richardson." The following let- 

 ter from Mr. Foulkes to the latter gentleman shews, however, 

 that his information was erroneous. 



" Sir, Llanbeder, near Ruthin, Nov. 7, 1727. 



I am to beg your pardon, which I do heartily, for informing 



you that Alsine baccifera grew in Anglesea, which I did from the account of 



it from one who pretended to know plants very well, and had attended Mr. 



Edward Lloyd." 



In a note to Alsine baccifera in the above letter, Sir J. E. 

 Smith says ; — 



Cucubalus baccifer. The only authority for this plant being reckoned a 

 native of Britain, is the above Mr, Foulkes. Nobody, as far as I can learn, 

 has met with the plant since, except in curious botanic gardens, in any part 

 of the British isles ; and I was accordingly obliged to be content with a gar- 

 den specimen, for the figure in English Botany, t. 1577. I am therefore 

 under the necessity, however unwillingly, of excluding the Cucubalus bac- 

 cifer from our British Flora. The Rev. Hugh Davies, who is so intimately 

 acquainted with the Botany of Anglesea, could never meet with this plant." 

 Linnean Correspondence, Vol. \\.p. 171. 



And subsequently, in his Eng. Fl. published in 18*28, he 

 remarks ; — 



" Cucubalus baccifer, which has hitherto found a place in every British 

 Flora, and which, in Fl. Brit. 464, stands as the only representative of its ge- 

 nus, must here be omitted." Vol. Up. 290. 



Dr. Macreight, in his Manual of Botany, published in 1837, 

 inserts the plant on the authority of Mr. G. Don, as growing 

 in " shady woods near Edinburgh ; " but Professor Don says 

 he believes this is a mistake ; and that his brother only thinks 

 the plant he saw, might have been the Cucubalus. 



My chief object in making this communication is to call 

 the attention of botanists to this singular plant. For although 

 it would perhaps be too much to claim its restoration to the 

 British Flora, on the ground of its occurrence in this single 

 locality, yet I cannot but believe that I have before met with 

 it, in similar situations, in other parts of England ; where, not 

 having been in flower at the time, T have always passed it by, 

 as I did on my first sight of it in the Isle of Dogs, thinking 

 it to be its natural ally, Cerastium aquaticum, to which, when 

 not in flower, it bears a very strong resemblance. Moreover, 

 from the very luxuriant state of the Cucubalus in the above 

 locality, I should conclude that it had been, for a long time, 

 in undisturbed possession of the place where it was growing: 

 and the ditch having been cleaned out, and the banks cleared 

 of their rank herbage, on each side of this place, it is not im- 

 probable that the plant had been destroyed in the cleared 

 parts. Under the circumstances there can, I think, be no 

 harm done in considering it a naturalized plant, at least un- 



