NOTES ON LATHYRUS 99 



Frudiwnm, is retained in the Index Keivemis. Miller himself com- 

 bined two plants in his description. His descriptive phrase— 

 " pedunculis imifioris, cirrhis polyphyllis, stipulis lanceolatis" — 

 agrees with the specimens in the National Herbarium; but the 

 Tournefortian synonym cited belongs, as correctly given in Hart. 

 CHfort. (p. 868), to L. pahistn's, L. ; and it is probably to this that 

 his EngUsh locality applies. 



The plant first appears in the 7th ed. of the Dictionary (No. 5), 

 where the English description runs:— ''The fifth Sort grows 

 naturally about Paris: this is an annual Plant with a slender 

 Stalk, about two Feet high, garnished with Leaves, composed of 

 several narrow Lobes placed alternate along the Mid-rib, which 

 ends in Claspers. The Flowers come out singly upon pretty long 

 Foot Stalks ; they are blue, and about the Size of those of the 

 common Tare. It grows naturally in some Parts of EmjUoui, par- 

 ticularly on Windsor Forest, in moist Meadows, and has often a 

 variable Flower." The specimens are from the Paris Garden, and 

 are L. articalatus, L.— a plant which Miller also describes under 

 the name L. hispaniciis. This of course is not an English plant, 

 and it is not easy to decide what Miller had in view when he speaks 

 of it as such. I am inclined to think that, like Tournefort's 

 synonym, L. paliistris (of which, as already noted, he cites Tourne- 

 fort's descriptive phrase as a synonym) was the plant in question. 

 Mr. Druce does not cite Miller under any Lathyrus, and the occur- 

 rence of the species in Berkshire is, as he points out, doubtful, 

 although he thinks Blackstone's Abingdon locality " not an un- 

 likely one."='= Perhaps, however, a form of L. montanus was 

 intended, for it will be noted that, although Miller describes the 

 blossoms as blue, he adds, " it has often a variable flower." 



The misapplication of Tournefort's name may perhaps be ac- 

 counted for by the fact that it is written by Linnasus on a sheet in 

 Chfibrt's Herbarium (where is also the type of the species), which 

 appears to belong here, but which is noted by Linnaeus as " malum 

 specimen." 



It may be worth noting that the generally accepted identification 

 of L. hispanicus Mill, with L. articidatus is confirmed by specimens 

 from Chelsea Garden in 1732, 1754, and 1776, and by plate xcvi. of 

 his Figures of Plants. 



- L. vENosus Miihl. ex Willd. Sp. PL iii. 1092 " (1800) = Vicia 

 venosa Maxim., also retained. Owing to the same trivial having 

 been employed under Lathyrus and Orobus for two different plants, 

 the references in Ind. Kew. need correction. To Vicia venosa, 

 besides the name above quoted, must be referred Orohus Muehien- 

 bergii Alef. in Bunplandia, ix. 146 ; the other names so assigned 

 belong to Orobus venosus Willd. 



Orobus japonicus Alef. in Bonplandia, ix. 143 (1861), referred 

 to Vicia pallida in Ind. Kew. = Lathyrus maritimus. 



* It may be noted that "the statement in Top. Bot. ' Berks, Britten, v. sp.' " 

 is not entirely "a mistake," as Mr. Druce supposes; it refers to the specimen 

 in Dickson's Hortus Siccus, localized, "Woods, Berkshire," which, however, 

 Mr. Druce is probably right in considering " not to be trusted." 



H 2 



