196 THK JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



which Mr. Druce ignores. Schultes (/. c.) writes " Statice Armeria 



Linn Smith Brit. i. p. 341. Engl, bot t. 226 (sub puhes- 



cente) " ; but in neither of the works cited does Smith employ the 

 name pubescms. It will hardly be contended that Smith can be 

 credited with the name on the authority of a false citation ; and it 

 cannot be assigned to Schultes, who does not himself employ it. 



I do not know the date of ''Armeria piibescens Link in Repert. Nat. 

 Cur. Berol. i. 180" — a reference to a work which neither Mr. Jackson 

 nor Mr. Druce seems to have seen, and which is not in the library of 

 the Natural History Museum ; but those who follow the rule of re- 

 taining the first name given under the accepted genus will probably 

 call the plant under discussion S. linear i folia Laterrade, Fl. Borde- 

 laise, ed. 2, p. 189 (1821). The earliest edition to which I have 

 access is the fourth (1846) ; in this S. Armeria var. pubescens DC. 

 is cited as a synonym, and it is so placed (with a mark of certainty) 

 by Godron (Fl. France, ii. 733), who adds, "nonRiedel." "Riedel" 

 is probably a misprint for " Loisel " ; there was an earlier linear i- 

 folia of Loiseleur (Fl. Galhca, 182 (1806)), but on a later page 

 (723) of the same work, the author says: '' Statice linear if olia'^. 

 non est species nova et distincta, sed vera S. Armeria Linn^ei." 



The synonymy of the plant as a species is : — 

 Statice linearifolia Laterr. Fl. Bordelaise, ed. 2, p. 189 (1821). 



Armeria j^ubescens Link in 'Repert. Nat. Cur. Berol. i. 180' 

 (? date) ; Boiss. in DC. Prodr. xii. 680 (1848). 



S. pubescens Druce in Journ. Linn. Soc. (Bot.) xxxv. 76 (1901). 



Those who follow the rule of adopting the oldest trivial will 

 retain the name pubescens (with, I presume, Mr. Druce as the 

 authority) ; Mr. Druce has not adopted that rule in his treatment 

 of Limonium, where he retains L. hjchnidifolium'''' for a plant which 

 (under Statice) has an earlier trivial, as will be seen from Mr. 

 Salmon's paper in the present number of this Journal (p. 193). 



I do not add under *S'. linearifolia the varieties named by Mr. Druce 

 under S. pnbeMem, partly because I have not knowledge sufficient 

 to enable me to arrive at a definite conclusion as to their value, but 

 still more because the practice of transference on purely literary 

 grounds can only increase synonymy, and seems prompted mainly 

 by a desire to associate one's name with new combinations. I am 

 sorry to see that Mr. Druce, in addition to the arrangement which 

 he adopts for Statice, indicates an alternative which necessitates 

 three fresh combinations, all duly set forward. A further and 

 more striking example of this objectionable practice is found in 

 the last report of the Botanical Exchange Club (p. 599), where 

 Mr. Druce, having described a new variety of Buda media as "var. 

 glandulosa mihi,'' continues : — " I have ventured to give it the above 

 name, whether it be considered a variety either under the generic 



* It may be noted here that Limonium occidentale, for which Mr. Druce 

 gives no authority, is so called by Dr. Kuntze on the same page for which 

 L. lychnidifolium is cited. Mr. Druce does not tell us why he leaves L. Dodartii 

 O. K. as a variety of auriculcefolium while he gives L. occidentale as a separate 

 species: Mr. C. E. Salmon (see p. 193) considers the three plants distinct. 



