344 SPEEGULA PENTANDEA IN IRELAND. 



citations which I had made. But he writes that I "did not seem 

 to be aware that this [E. B. Plate No. 1536] is reproduced in the 

 3rd edition of 'English Botany, t. 253, and cited by Syme as 

 S. arvensis var. sativa, which it undoubtedly represents." If the 

 plate in Syme's Eng. Bot. 253 be consulted (I am assuming that 

 my copy is not an exceptional one), it will be found to be labelled 

 S. arvensis var. vulgaris, and not as the Editor cites, S. arvensis var. 

 sativa. In the text, vol. ii., p. 127, of the same work it is also 

 named var. vulgaris, and reference there given to the E. B. plate 

 1536. Syme also adds an important footnote : — " The seeds of the 

 two varieties a and b have inadvertently been transposed in the 

 two plates," that is, the figures of the seeds in the vulgaris plate 

 are figures of the seed of sativa, and vice versa. 



Even this does not altogether conclude the matter, for although 

 it is true that the outline of the E. B. plate 1536 is reproduced, 

 and the number is quoted on the plate No. 253 in Syme's E. B., 

 yet the characteristic pubescence very noticeable on the original 

 plate has been apparently intentionally suppressed in the reproduced 

 plate 253, although there are faint traces of hairs in the lower leaves 

 only. So that to me it no longer represents an " undoubted figure 

 of var. sativa," while if we follow Syme's directions given in the 

 footnote already quoted and transpose the figures of the seeds, we 

 shall obtain a plate which fairly well represents (although no 

 petals are drawn in detail) the subglabrous state of S. vulgaris as 

 it occurs in rich arable soil. 



The point raised in my paper might have been more clearly 

 stated. I ventured to claim that the omission of Spergula pentandra 

 from the list of British plants is based on an error, namely this, that 

 " the plant found by Sherard in Ireland was one of the species of 

 Lepigonum." But we find that the original specimen given by 

 Sherard to Dillenius is true S. pentandra, not a Lepigonum ; that his 

 foreign specimens of pentandra collected or obtained by himself and 

 preserved in his own herbarium are not confused with Lepigonum, 

 and that the description in the ' Synopsis ' is accurate ; for these 

 reasons we may assume that Sherard was well acquainted with the 

 plant in question. The statement that he mistook a Lepigonum 

 (Buda) for it is unsupported by evidence. We know that he visited 

 several parts of Ireland, and plants sent by him from there are 

 again and again mentioned in the ' Synopsis.' An example pertinent 

 to the case of Spergula pentandra is that of Chara polyacantha, which 

 was collected by Sherard in Ireland. It was figured in Plukenet 

 in 1691, but not for a long time properly identified and admitted to 

 the British Flora. The identification we owe to Messrs. Groves 

 (see Journ. Bot. 1880, 131). 



As I have pointed out, the continental distribution of S. pentandra 

 is not antagonistic to its occurrence as a native plant in Ireland. 

 My concluding remark would be that tbe thing to be desired now 

 is its re-discovery in Ireland. This was the reason for writing the 

 note in the 'Annals of Botany,' and for paying a hurried visit to 

 the south of Ireland this year. My search was not rewarded by 

 success, but I have reason to believe that the ground which 



