358 Mr Arnott's Tour to the South of Frcmce, 



in the plains, but always in the beds of mountain rivulets, 

 indicating that these were stragglers, and had been carried 

 down by torrents. 



On the 23d, being rainy and disagreeable weather, our excur- 

 sion was short, confining ourselves to the immediate vicinity of 

 the cabanasse. In meadows, however, close to the road that leads 

 to Mont Louis, we met with Dimithus atroruhens, Pedicularis 

 verticillata, and Trifolium spadiceicm, all abundant, and in an 

 excellent state for preservation. Near them also was Vicia ono- 

 hrycJioides. Descending the road we had come by yesterday for 

 a little way, we then crossed a small stream on the right, and 

 found on a bank beautiful specimens of Didymodon glaucescens. 

 Genista * sagittalis and purgansy and Drdba nemoralis. There 



• I take this opportunity of stating, that Cytisus heterophyllus^ Lap., is, I 

 think, identical with Genista prostrata, Lam. and DC. Prod. This plant must 

 not, however, be confounded, as has been done by WiUdenow, and even by 

 De CandoUe in the Flore Francaise, with G. decumbens, W. M. De Candolle, 

 in the Supplement to the Flore Francaise, himself desires this synonym to 

 be excluded ; and though he does not cite Willdenow's plant under G, pros- 

 irata in the Prodromus, 2. p. 152, he leaves it as undetermined, or, in other 

 words, he omits all notice of it. Willdenow, in his description (vol. iii. p. 941), 

 points out how his plant dilFers from G. procumbens, W. K. ; aiwl I think there 

 are few who have seen Lamark's G. prostrata, that will not immediately re- 

 cognise it and G. procumbens, W. K., and DC. Prod, to be one and the same. 

 The G. procumbens of Schleicher is also G. prostrata ; but G. decnmbens of the 

 same is G. pilosa, Linn. As to G. decttmbens, W., or Spartium decumbens^ Ait., 

 it may be distinguished by verbatim the same character that Sprengel applies 

 to G. prostrata (v. iii. p. 220.) : he adduces, however, G. deeumbens. W. as a sy- 

 nonym, and his description was probably drawn up with a view to that plant. 

 It will also be easily perceived that SprengePs Cytism procumbens (iii. p. 224.) 

 is the true G. prostrata. 



I shall here also notice another mistake that has crept into, the Prodromus 

 in the allied genus Cytisus. C. capitatus is inserted in the Flore Francaise ; 

 but in the Supplement, De Candolle points out the error, and states that it 

 is C. supinus that has been taken for it ; yet it is to the C. supinus he alludes 

 in the Prodromus, when he says that it grows in the east of Burgundy, and 

 that its " Flores interdum autumno laterales evadunt." As to the C supintts 

 in the Prodromus, he has both kept it as a good species, and at the same time 

 reduced it to C bijlorus. Lastly, his character of C. supinus, in the Supple- 

 ment to the Flore Francaise, p. 549, " la levre superieure a 3 dents, Finfe- 

 rieure a 2 parties,'* is extremely incorrect. C. hirsutus, Schleicher, is C. sm- 

 pinrn. C. supinus., Lapeyr. on the other hand, is the true C. capitatus ; but 

 what his C. capitatus is I am not sure ; probably a mixture of C. capitatus and 

 C supim(s. 



