Botanical Society of Edinburgh. S41 



Sinapis Cheiranthus. In a field near GuUane. Not previously 

 found in Scotland, and doubtfully indigenous. 



Brosera longifolia. In bogs at the foot of the Knock Hill, not far 

 from the station of Carex irrigua. 



Hypericum Androscemum. Near Culross. 



ITypochceris glabra. Near Culross. 



Lamium maculatum* Banks of the Esk, about two miles above 

 Musselburgh. ; 7*>ff:r )c 



Rumex alpinus. > In tWo localities near the Knock Hill, both near 

 cottages. 



Tulipa sylvestris. Sides of the Water of Leith, above Currie. 



Zannichellia palustris. Canal near Fountain Bridge. 



Carex incurva. Sea-shore between Longniddry and Prestonpans. 



4. " On the Nightshade Family," by Mr. Peter Fairbairn. Mr. 

 Fairbairn detailed the character and properties of the SolanacecB, and 

 alluded particularly to the nature and qualities of the alkaloids 

 yielded by different genera and species. He remarked that the 

 effect produced by such alkaloids as Hyoscyamine, Daturine, and 

 Atropine were different from those produced by Solanine, especially 

 as regards the dilatation of the pupil. 



. Dr. T. Anderson remarked that Mr. Fairbairn had not adopted the 

 division proposed by Miers into Solanacece drndi Atropacece, orders 

 which were distinguished by aestivation and other botanical characters, 

 as well as by their physiological properties. He did not consider 

 that any correct evidence had been adduced of the narcotic proper- 

 ties of the species of Solatium. The infusion of S. Dulcamara could 

 be given in large quantities without producing any narcotic effects, 

 and its berries had been used as a preserve. The effects of the plants 

 belonging to the order Atropacece did not develope themselves like 

 those of opium ; they were more of a stimulant character and were 

 slowly produced, and they were accompanied with marked enlarge- 

 ment of the pupil. 



5. " Illustrations of the value of Botanical Histology to the Medical 

 Student and Practitioner," by Dr. Lindsay, Assistant Physician to 

 the Crichton Royal Institution, Dumfries. The author stated that 

 the origin of this paper was due to the fact that there existed 

 among the medical students of the Edinburgh University, a strong 

 feeling that they are compelled by the Curriculum-regulations to learn 

 too much of the collateral sciences of natural history, chemistry 

 and botany, — ^botany being, in particular, a science, the knowledge 

 of which is regarded as quite unnecessary for the practice of their 

 profession. The idea that the study of the scientific or theoretical 

 disqualifies to a certain extent from the acquirement of practical 

 knowledge is a fatal error, and he believed that every Professor of 

 the University could bear testimony to the fact that those students who 

 had distinguished themselves in one department of their Academic 

 curriculum generally did so equally in every other. Dr. Lindsay's 

 object in this communication was merely to lay before such sceptics 

 the results of the short experience of one but lately a student — of one 

 who had been at the same time a scientific and a " practical man," 



