TETRANDRIA— MONOGYNIA. Galium. 207 



of Killarney, Ireland. Rev. Mr. Butt. About Matlock bath, 

 Derhj^shire, plentifully. 



Perennial. Jiiltj, ^uguat. 



Stems very numerous, from A to 10 inches high, branched, square, 

 loosely spreading, and forming large tufts, conspicuous for their 

 innurnerable little milk-white Jlowers. The lower part of each 

 stem is frequently rough with short prominent hairs, such as are 

 scattered, often abundantly, over the Ic.wer leaves, but not 

 pointing upwards or downwards, nor do they form a regular 

 fringe on the margin • the upper leaves are smoother. Some- 

 times the whole herb is destitute of any such hairs. There are 

 no hooked prickles on any part, though a few of the hairs, about 

 the lower part of the margins of some leaves, are now and then 

 slightly deflexed. The branches are opposite, mostly smooth. 

 Leaves from 6 to 8 or 9 in a whorl, on the stem and main 

 branches j and indeed rarely fewer any where ; linear-lanceo- 

 late, scarcely inclining to obovate, bright green, shining, revo- 

 lute when dry, quite entire, tipped with a white bristle, most 

 evident on the upper and smaller ones ; the lowest are much 

 crowded. Flowers in copious, forked, smooth, minutely brac- 

 teated panicles, terminating the stem and branches. Segments 

 of the corolla acute, somewhat pointed. Style deeply cloven. 

 Stigmas globose. Fruit small, of 2 globular seeds, quite smooth. 



This is, in itself, a most distinct and well defined species, ho other- 

 wise variable than in the pubescence, which is of a very pecu- 

 liar nature, at least among the smooth-seeded kinds ; consisting 

 of short, soft, directly prominent, hairs, not attaching themselves 

 to neighbouring substances, like the prickles of the foregoing 

 species. Nothing however, as Haller remarks, is more difficult 

 than the synonymy of this plant. Indeed most writers upon the 

 present genus mention every thing but what is important or 

 discriminative. Our plant is certainly that of Linneeus -, but 

 Haller, who in his first edition above quoted appears to have 

 meant the same, has there collected synonyms which belong to 

 the totally different G. glaucum. Under n. 717 of his 2nd edi- 

 tion, he has given such a description as cannot be mistaken, 

 though, according to Mr. Davall, he includes, under this number, 

 G. austriacum of Jacquin ; and there can be no certainty of his 

 references to older authors. I presume Mr. G. Don must have 

 known G. pusilliim, though Professor Hooker seems doubtful 

 about it, and I therefore quote his work with hesitation. Our 

 English plant could surely never have been, by any chance, 

 called Icrve ; for if one specimen be smooth, it is always accom- 

 panied by hundreds in every state of hairiness. G. piisillum of 

 Villars, if correctly drawn, must be different. His species require 

 an accurate scrutiny ; they are probably too many ; nor was 

 he or his pupils invariably correct in the specimens of this diffi- 

 cult tribe, which they sCiVt named to their correspondents. 



