96 THK JOURNAL OK BOTANY 



^OTEJS ON LATHYRUS. 



13y James Bkitten, F.L.tS. 



Some time ago, when working at this genus, I noted that the 

 synonymy both mider it and under (h-obns in the Luhw Kticiiisifi was 

 greatly confused. The reduction of the species of Orobiis to Lathi/rus 

 partly accounts for this, the fact that the same trivial name has 

 been employed under each genus having led to the assumption that 

 the same plant was intended in each case. 80 far as I know the 

 Indtw, no genus requires so much revision as Lathy nis. I do not, 

 however, propose to imdertake such a task, but it may be well to 

 put on record some of the notes I made. 



The greatest individual factor in the confusion which exists is 

 undoubtedly the placing together under Lntlujms niontanus of two 

 references which indicate entirely diti'erent plants, and the assigna- 

 tion to this compound of a large number of synonyms, which have 

 to be differentiated. I had drawn out a Hst of these, separating 

 those which belong to L. niontanus Bernh. {Orobas tuberosus L., 

 L. Hiacrorrhhiis Wimm.) from tliose of L. )nont<uius Gren. & Godr. 

 (O. occidental is). But 1 tind that Dr. Karl Fritsch has already 

 indicated the necessary changes in his paper, " Ueber einige Orobiis- 

 Arten und ihre geographische Verbreitung " ■' — a paper in which 

 the plants of the group are dealt with so fully and exhaustively 

 that I have had no hesitation in suppressing my notes upon them, 

 save in one or two special cases. Further elucidations from Dr. 

 Fritsch's pen are "Ueber den Formenkreis der (hobus littcus h.'' 

 (Verhandl. der K.K. zool.-bot. Gesellschaft in Wieu, Feb. 9, 1900), 

 and a paper in Oesterr. hot. Zeitschrift for November, 1900, 

 pp. 389-896. Dr. Gmzberger's important paper, '* Ueber einige 

 Lat/t<//-».s- Arten am der Section Kulathi/rus'' (Sitzber. Akad. 

 AYissenschaft. Wien, cv. 1, 281-352), is not concerned with the 

 plants on which I offer these notes.] They are not in any way 

 exhaustive, and some are of small importance ; others, such as 

 that on L. nuKjeiianiciis, may, I hope, prove of sufficient interest to 

 warrant publication. I cite the names as they stand in Mr. Jack- 

 son's Luicd'. 



" L. Albekjilla feteud. Nom. ed. 2, ii. 13 [1841] ." A reference 

 to Steudel gives this information : " Lathyrus (vulgo Alberjilla) 

 Bert. Herb. nr. 1073." I have not seen this nuQiber of Bertero's, 

 and am doubtful whether this indication is sufficient for the establish- 

 ment of a species. Gay (Fl. Chil. ii. 141) gives •• Alrerjilla'' as the 

 popular Chihan equivalent of Lathi/rus, and especially (p. 148) for 

 L. piibt'scens. Neither PhiUppi (Cat. PI. Chil. 1881) nor Keiche (Fl. 

 de Chile, 1898) cites Steudel's name. 



* Sitzber. Akad. Wissenschaft. Wien, civ. 479-520. 



t On p. 336 Dr. Ginzberger takes exception to the quotation of Lathyrus 

 maynijiorui^ from Mill. Gard. Diet, in Ind. Kew.. and says. *'ein solcher Name 

 existirt niclit." He will, however, tind it with many similar corrections of the 

 text on the very last page of Miller's Dictionary. 



