98 Mr. C. C. Babington on some British species of (Enanthe. 



nifolia must be referred to (E. silaifolia (Bieb.) until it can be 

 shown that the fruit is different. Owing to the want of authentic 

 specimens of Bieberstein' s plant, and of ripe fruit of Smith's, I 

 am unable to do this, although it will be seen below that several 

 authors consider it to possess a totally different form from that 

 described by DeCandolle. The descriptions published by Ber- 

 toloni and Koch remain to be considered, and it will be seen that 

 they both describe the root in such a manner as to convey the 

 idea of a quite different form of fibre from that possessed by the 

 plant of Bieberstein ; but that in their account of the fruit, totally 

 different plants must be intended. 



I now come to the latest author who has written concerning 

 these plants, namely Grisebach. In his f Spicilegium Florae Ru- 

 melicse et Bithynicse' (i. 352 — 357) he has described several new 

 species of (Enanthe, and appended a tabular synopsis of all the 

 European species belonging to the genus. Here we find that 

 (E. media (Griseb.) has "radicis napulis sessilibus oblongis utrin- 



que attenuatis," and " fructibus cylindricis annulo calloso 



ad basin cinctis f and he afterwards adds, that it is " species 

 media inter G£. peucedanifoliam (Poll.), quacum foliis et petalis 

 convenit, et (E. silaifoliam (M. B.), cujus fructum radicemque 

 imitatur." Here then we have an express declaration that the 

 true (E. silaifolia has roots similar to Sowerby's figure in ' Eng. 

 Bot.,' but that its fruit has the enlarged callous ring at the base. 



Concerning (E. peucedanifolia there is very little difference of 

 opinion ; most authors considering it to possess sessile, more or 

 less clavate radical knobs, which contract abruptly into a long 

 slender fibre, and fruits which are narrowed at the base. 



If now we refer to Mr. Ball's description of his specimens 

 named (E. silaifolia from Portmarnock and Deerhurst, we find 

 that they possess oblong-clavate radical knobs terminating in a 

 fibre — a structure which I consider to belong to the (E. silaifolia 

 of Bertoloni and Koch, but not of Bieberstein, and the (E. peu- 

 cedanifolia of most authors — but then he describes the fruit as 

 " clavatum inferne quidquam contractum." In both these re- 

 spects, therefore, it would appear that his plants might have been 

 considered as the (E. peucedanifolia, had he not stated that all 

 their leaves are similar, the leaflets of the lower leaves being lan- 

 ceolate and of the upper ones linear, which I believe not to be the 

 case in (E. peucedanifolia. Thus his plant is not (E. peucedani- 

 folia from its leaves, not (E. silaifolia of Bieberstein, DeCandolle, 

 Reichenbach nor Bluff, from its root. It is probably the plant 

 of Bertoloni but not that of Koch, if " the presence or absence of 

 the incrassated summit of the pedicel/' by which I understand 

 what most authors call the callous ring at the base of the fruit, 

 " is never seen to vary." 



