NOTES ON LATHYRUS 97 



" L. AMEKicANus Mill. Dlct. ed. viii. no. 19= Br(ptina per- 

 foliata?" This is Wujnchoda Htenispernwidea DC. ; see Journ. Bot. 

 1897, 231. 



L. ANNuus ''Linn. Amcen. Acad. iii. 417 (nota) [1756]" dates 

 from Demonstr. Plant, p. 20 (1753). 



L. APHYLLus " Link, ex Wel)b & Berth. Bhyt. Canar. ii. 103 

 [1836] " should stand as " Link in Buch, Phys. Beschr. Canar. 

 Lis. 157 (1825)." 



" L. Armitageanus Knowles & Westc. Flor. Cab. iii. ('1840') 

 [1839] 81 = nervosiis Lam." This name was published at an 

 earlier date : in Loud. Card. Mag. xi. (1835) p. 525, it is quoted 

 from Aris's Birmingham Gazette of the same year, and ths name 

 is also cited by Sweet (Brit. Fl. Gard. 2nd Series, iv. 344 (1836) as 

 '' L. Annitdtjetoius \Netit in Plort. Birm." Loudon takes " West " 

 as referring- to a " West Birmingham Botanical Society," but it 

 is doubtless an abbreviation of " Westcott," who was secretary of 

 the Birmingham Society. 



"L. aurantius C. Koch, in Linmea, xv. 723 (1841) " = Vicia 

 aurantia. 



" L. inermis Rochel, ex Frivald. in Magyar Tud. Tar. Evkon. 

 ii. (1835) 250, t. 2=:hirsutus." This is an error; the plant is 

 identical with L. villosns Frivald. in Flora, xix. 437 (1836), and 

 antedates that name. The Kew Index erroneously identifies Orobus 

 hirsutiis L. with L. hlrsiUus L. We have specimens from Frivaldsky 

 of L. inermis and L. villosus. 



"L. LUTEUs Munby, Fl. Alger. 73" [78] = L. annuus ex 

 Battandier, Fl. Alger. 278 — an identification suggested by Munby 

 when proposing his species. 



L. magellanicus Lam. Under this name two very different 

 plants have been confused for nearly a century, and are combined 

 in the Index lOwenais. The confusion began in Alton's Ilortus 

 Kewends (iv. 309), where Pisiini americtmum of Miller's Dictionary 

 is placed as a synonym under L. mageUmiiam. This seems to have 

 been done at the suggestion of Eobert Brown, who has identified 

 Miller's plant in the Banksian Herbarium with L. uKKjellcmiciis 

 Lam., and indicates that he proposed to place it under Pimui in 

 Hort. Kew. ed. 2. From Lamarck's description it differs at first 

 sight by the fact that it does not turn black in drying, as is the 

 case with the group of forms or species of which nuKjellanicus is the 

 type ; and a tracing of the original in the Paris Herbarium, for 

 which we are indebted to M. E. Bonnet, confirms its distinctness 

 from Miller's plant. This latter we have no hesitation in referring 

 to L. nervosiis Lam. 



Of Miller's plant we have, besides the sheet from Chelsea 

 Garden in the Banksian collection, another specimen grown in the 

 same garden in 1762. Its history, as narrated by Miller, is of some 

 interest; he says: — " This was brought from Cape Horn by Lord 

 Anson's cook, when he passed that Cape, where these peas were a 

 great relief to the sailors. It is kept here as a curiosity, but the 



Journal of Botany. — Vol. 39. [March, 1901.] h 



