|ilea«ure to add my testimony to that of J. E. L., expresBedto the above 

 effect, in his article in VoL IV. p. 136. Were the old fanciful theory, sq 

 prettily sung by Thomson, in his poem of The Seasons^ true, a plant 

 with seven or eight heads of flowers open at once, as is sometimes the 

 case, would necessarily have them oddly huddled together, in the efforts 

 of each to stare the sun in the face, from the rising to the setting of the 

 same. — J. D. 



The Flowers of Campdmila rotundifolia are the " Blue Bells of Scotland ^^ 

 and those of SciUu nutans are the Harebells. ■ — Sir, your contributor, oCj*, 

 }y\ reviewing, in your Vol. 11., the first volume of Dr. Johnston's Flora of 

 Berwick npon Tweedy asks, p. 236., if Dr. Johnston has not erred in iden*. 

 tifying the blue bells of Scotland with the flowers of Campanula rotundi- 

 folia i. ; the reviewer deeming 6'cilla nutans to be rather the blue bell, and 

 the Campanula rotundifolia to be the harebell . Dr. Johnston replies- to 

 this query in your Vol. III. p. 461., and there shows that the blue bells «f 

 Scotland are undoubtedly the flowers of the Campanula rotundifolia. On this 

 point Dr. Johnston is, without a doubt, perfectly correct ; as I shall prove by 

 consequence, when I adduce evidence to show, in answler to the remaining 

 \:^ of the question, that the harebells are the flowers of >S'cllla niitaiJB, 

 anfl not tliose of Campam^la rotundifolia, as suggested by (S^* (Vol. II. 

 p,,236.) Burns, in a letter to Mrs. Dunlop, dated New Year's day morn- 

 ing, 1789, says : — "I have some favourite flowers in spring ; among which 

 gre the mountain daisy, the harebell, the foxglove, the wild briar rose, the 

 budding birk [birch], and the hoary hawthorn, that 1 view and hang over 

 with particular delight." Now, as the Campanula rotundifolia does not 

 flower until two months later than any of these, Burns's harebell must 

 have been the 5cilla nutans. — J. C. Farmer. Nov. 1831. Ji^ bitu ^aa/^'ii 



On the specific Identity of Anagdllis arven^is and cceruleiki ^j^qI^UJa, 

 p. 337.; Vol. IV. p. 79. 277, 278. 466. 557.) — Sir, As you were so 

 obliging as to insert an experiment of mine made with the view of ascer- 

 taining whether these plants were specifically the same or not; and as 

 one or two of your correspondents have subsequently alluded to my 

 communication ; I beg to offer you an extract from a letter which I have 

 received from the gentleman, the Rev. E. Wilson, who furnished me with 

 the seeds of Jnagallis caerulea: — "In the spring (1831) I sowed the 

 seed of A. CEcrulea in a flower border at Chapel AUerton. It had been 

 gathered in 1827, at the same time as that which was sent to you. Twenty- 

 eight plants made their appearance, of which twenty-five had blue flowers, 

 and three had red. Eight plants from seeds of the white variety retained 

 their white colour. Mr. William Richardson has also tried three experi- 

 ments this summer on the blue pimpernel at Owston, near Doncaster. In 

 each experiment two garden pots were filled with earth, and then some 

 seeds were placed in one pot, but none in the other. The results were as 

 follows: — No. 1. Sandy loam; seeds gathered in 1827. In the sown 

 pot there came up 14 blue and 2 red : in the unsown pot, 1 red. — No. 2. 

 Sandy loam, as before; seed of 1828 from plants raised from the seed of 



1827. In the sown pot, 6 blue and 2 red: in the unsown pot, none. — > 

 No. 3. Strong loam; seed of 1830 from plants raised from the seed of 



1828. In the sown pot, 31 blue : in the unsown, none. Besides the abovcj 

 a similar experiment was made upon the white variety from seeds of 1826, 

 sown in bog earth. None appeared in the unsown pot, and 9 with white 

 flowers came up in the other." By these experiments it appears how very 

 difficult it is to avoid the introduction of error. The appearance of the 

 single red-flowering plant in No. 1. in the unsown pot, at once nullifies 

 any conclusion that might have been drawn from that and the following 

 e5fperiiTaej)^,jan4"(?Y^^;^hrAW;S a shade of doubt over the results obtained 



