Mr. Charles C. Babington on Ranunculus aquatilis. 225 



XXV. — On Ranunculus aquatilis of Smith. By Charles 

 C. Babington, M.A., F.L.S., F.G.S., &c. 



Owing to the respect in which Sir J. E. Smith is justly held 

 by English botanists, the plants included in the Batrachian 

 section of the Ranunculi have been considered as forming only 

 two species by all our native authors whose works have ap- 

 peared since the publication of his ' Flora Britannica.' In 

 that work, following the example of Linnaeus, he describes R. 

 hederaceus and aquatilis as distinct species, including under 

 the latter four species of Ray (Syn. 249.) and Sibthorp (Fl. 

 Oxon. 175.) 3 ^^^ i^ is ^^^ ^ little surprising, that so bold an 

 undertaking, as the destruction of three species, of authors so 

 well known for their attention to the living plants, and for their 

 discrimination of species (although, owing to the low state of 

 descriptive botany, they may not have clearly defined their 

 distinctive characters) should not have attracted more atten- 

 tion from the practical botanists of this country. 



For several years I have taken every opportunity of study- 

 ing these plants in their native waters, and am now fully con- 

 vinced that R. aquatilis, circinatus and fluviatilis of Sibthorp 

 are truly distinct species, having excellent and clearly distin- 

 guishable characters when examined in a living state, although 

 the pressure required in their preparation causes their differ- 

 ences to be less remarkable when preserved in the herbarium. 

 Upon reference to foreign books, it will be found that nearly 

 all the more modern writers have divided the R, aquatilis of 

 Smith into two or more species, but that owing to the diffi- 

 culty of determining upon what characters dependence could 

 be placed, it is only of late years that they have been correctly 

 defined ; and the sceptical have been strongly confirmed in 

 their doubts by observing that the learned DeCandolle, who 

 described two species (i?. aquatilis and pantothrix) in his 

 ^ Systema', has again formed them into only one in his ^ Pro- 

 dromus'. This result might have been confidently predicted 

 by any person who was well acquainted with the plants ; for 

 he has not mentioned a single character which is not extremely 

 variable, founding his distinctions upon some of the leaves 

 being tripartite, or all of them multifid, and upon the gla- 



