96 ANNALS OF SCOTTISH NATURAL HISTORY 



DiocTRiA CELANDiCA, Z. — $ , Comrie, 7, vii. '07. Mr. Verrall gives 

 - no Scotch localities, but there is an old record in Mr. Grimshaw's 

 'List of "Forth" Diptera,' "A.S.N.H.," 1903, p. 162. 



D. RUFiPES, Dei!;. — 18 and 27, vii. '04 ; five examples in all, c^ $ . 

 Blackford Hill. "Taken by thoroughly sweeping the nettle 

 patches above the Hermitage on the hill-side " (W.). 



ON THE BRITISH PLANT LISTS AND THEIR 



DISCREPANCIES. 



By G. Claridge Druce, M.A., F.L.S. 



( Continued from 1908,/. 242.) 



505 and 506. Oxalis stricta and coi-niculata^ L. In the 

 " List of British Seed Plants," Rendle and Britten 

 have followed the example of Dr. Robinson (" Journ. 

 Bot.," 1907, 386) and reversed the above names, using 

 stricta for the prostrate and corniculata for the erect species. 

 The " London Catalogue " and my List keep to the 

 names as they have been, without exception (till Dr. Robin- 

 son's innovation), used by botanists since Linnaeus founded 

 them. The confusion which would result if such a change 

 were sanctioned would be so great as to render a trinomial 

 necessary ; but I hold that Dr. Robinson has not got over 

 the essential point, i.e.^ the description, as given in the 

 " Species Plantarum " of O. corniculata^ caule ramoso diffuso, 

 pedunculis umbelliferis. Now Linna,'us could not have had 

 stricta before him when he wrote this description, which is 

 not applicable to it. It is a rule, supported, I believe, by all 

 botanists, that the description is the essential part in estab- 

 lishing a species, and that references to plates and synonymy 

 are secondary. But Linnseus cites " Trifolium luteum 

 minus repens, etiam procumbens " (Moris. " Hist.," 2, p. 183, 

 t. 17, f. 2), which is certainly not strictuin \ and Dr. Buck- 

 nail and Mr. J. W. White agree in naming the specimen in 

 the Morisonian Herbarium O. corniculata, so that the only 

 figure definitely cited does not refer to sti'icta. It is quite 

 likely Linnseus may have muddled the two species ; but the 

 definition caule ramoso diffuso, wherever it may have been 



