240 ANNALS OF SCOTTISH NATURAL HISTORY 



and then the correction in 1845 ^^om the erroneous or 

 supposed erroneous reference of latifolium to a new name 

 nigrcsccns, which is characteristic of the plant, and a name 

 which Syme (" E. B." ii. Zj^ quotes in synonymy, and 

 indeed utihses for the varietal name there used. 



Since writing the foregoing I have seen Edmonston's 

 " Flora of Shetland," published in 1845, where in the preface, 

 p. XV, the author alludes to it under the name C. nigrescens, 

 which is I think a valid publication ; since in the text (p. 29) 

 under the name C. latifolium, var. nigrescens, Edmonston 

 says " Mr. Watson, after an investigation of numerous 

 specimens, still considers this plant (the C. nigrescens from 

 Balta-sound) as not truly distinct from C. latifolium, and 

 from deference to his authority I give up the point." But 

 the fact remains that Edmonston first described it as a 

 species, and the name as a species is given in " Flora of 

 Shetland," whence its publication dates ; if indeed its exhibi- 

 tion at the Botanical Society, and the reference in the 

 " Phytologist," Lc. is not valid. Our British species 

 therefore should be C. nigrescens, Edmonston (" Fl. Shetl." 

 p. XV, 1845), with var. (or forma arcticuni) (Lange) for the 

 more generally distributed plant, if indeed the latter is con- 

 sidered to be worth distinction.-^ 



Cerastiuni vulgatum, L., var. alpinum, Hartm., I think, 

 covers var. fontanum, Baumg. The var. longirostre, Wich., 

 has longer capsules, I believe. 



Arenaria Sedoides. Kittel's name should be bracketed ; 

 he called it an Alsine. 



Sagina uiaritima, Don. The var. alpina, Syme, is 

 accidentally omitted from my List. I was doubtful about 

 its identity. My plant from the Cairngorms identified by 

 Mr. Bennett with it has, as Messrs. Groves point out, a 

 central rosette ; Don's specimen in Miss Palmer's herbarium 

 from summit of Ben Nevis has not. 



6". Renter, Boiss. Somewhat reluctantly I followed the 

 " Manual " in making this a variety of 5. apetala. I think 



1 I am assuming that botanists for the most part agree in considering our 

 British plant distinct from the continental C. latifolium. Watson in "Top. 

 Bot.," 1873, P- 95? calls it C. nigrescejis from Shetland. The Lond. Cat. name 

 was a nomen midum, but it is described in the second edition of Babington's 

 " Manual," p. 56. 



