"STATICE PUBESCENS SM." ' 195 



The earlier name for the species, Statice auricida-ursifolia of 

 Pourret, cannot stand as a synonym of L. hjch)ddi folium without 

 the words "pro parte " being added; in the British Museum Her- 

 barium is a sheet from Pourret on which are specimens of both 

 lijch nidi folium and Girardianum (Statice densijiora Girard), which 

 seems to show that Pourret mcluded two plants in his description. 



I should be very grateful for the loan of any dried examples of 

 British L. occideutale, Dodartii, and intermedium, for the study of 

 this particular group of Limonium ; any fresh living specimens sent 

 to " Clevelands," Reigate, Surrey, would also be extremely useful. 



I have to express my thanks to Mr. C. R. P. Andrews for notes 

 on the finding of the plant, and to Mr. Britten for help given in the 

 preparation of this paper. 



Explanation of Plate 422. 

 Limonium lychnidifoliuin 0. Kuntze, var. corymbosum, natural size, drawn 

 from an Alderney specimen:—!. Outer bract. 2. Middle bract. 3. Inner 

 bract. 4. Bracteole. 5. Calyx. All enlarged four times. 



STATICE PUBESCENS Sm. 

 By the Editor. 



Mr. Druce in the recently issued number of the Linnean 

 Society's Journal'' follows Dr. Otto Kuntze in placing under 

 Statice the Thrifts, which have usually been called Armeria, and 

 in adopting Limonium for the Sea-Lavenders ; and in this change 

 all who accept the rule of priority will concur. He recognizes 

 three species as British, thus following Boissier, though with some 

 hesitation, in regarding Armeria pubescens Link as entitled to specific 

 rank. This view, so far as I have been able to ascertain, is not 

 maintained by most British botanists, but the limits of a species 

 are of course matters on which there will always be difterences of 

 opinion : Mr. Druce's method of dealing with the subject, and his 

 creation of "varieties or subvarieties " both of S. maritima and 

 S. pubescens, does not, however, inspire confidence as to their claim 

 to specific distinction. Meanwhile I think it is clear that if the 

 latter is to figure in our lists as an independent species, it must 

 do so under a name other than that given by Mr. Druce. 



Mr. Druce writes the name " S. pubescens, Sm. ex Schult. Syst. 

 vi. 772." In the Inde,v Kewensis it stands ^' S. pubescens Sm. ex 

 Schult. Syst. vi. 772 (cum cit. falsa) "—an important qualification 



* Botany, vol. xxxv. No. 242, pp. ^6, 67 (April, 1901). The present seems 

 a suitable opportunity for expressing our regret that, owing to the non-publication 

 of a note sent to this Journal in 1898, Mr. Druce should feel himself unable to 

 contribute to our pages papers hke the present, which would thus be more 

 accessible to British botanists than they can be in the Journal of a learned 

 Society. It would, we are sure, be as satisfactory to the readers of this Journal 

 as to its Editor if Mr. Druce could see his way to a renewal of the old relations 

 between us. 



p 2 



