RANUNCULUS OBTUSIFLORUS 115 



Apparently western Europe is exceptionally rich in species of 

 Batrachian Ranunculi. 



In choosing the name B. baudotii for his aggregate species, 

 Syme passed over an earlier one, Batrachium obtusiflorum S. F. 

 Gray (1821). It was, of course, customary in this country at 

 that time to follow " the Kew rule " ; and consequently Gray's 

 name would have been ignored by Syme even if he had seen it, 

 since it was placed in a different genus. There was also the 

 name B. tripartitus Nolte (1826) to consider ; but this name was 

 pre-occupied by B. tripartitus DC. (1808) for another legitimate 

 species. 



Gray's plant {B. obtusiflorum) was founded on B. tripartitus 

 var. obtusiflorus DC. (1818), and de Candolle's variety, in its turn, 

 on an illustration by Petiver {English Herbal, t. 39, fig. 1, 1713). 

 This plant of de Candolle's was an addition to the B. tripartitus 

 DC. (1808) which became B. tripartitus var. ynicranthus DC. (1818). 



It is clear that B. tripartitus var. obtusiflorus DC, being 

 founded on one of Petiver's plants, is British ; and I am satisfied 

 that Petiver's figure must be referred to B. baudotii Godron 

 ampl. Syme. It is equally clear that Gray's plant is the same as 

 de Candolle's var. obtusiflorus, and therefore that Gray's trivial 

 name (being the earliest) must be utilised for Syme's aggregate 

 species ; and this is the but of the present communication. 



Godron, when founding his B. baudotii, remarked that the 

 plant showed a closer affinity with B. tripartitus DC. than with 

 B. aquatilis L. emend. ; " and it certainly is the case that it is an 

 interesting connecting link, as regards both its characters and its 

 distribution, between the two species B. tripartitus DC. and 

 B. aquatilis L. emend. On the whole, it seems justifiable to 

 retain these as three distinct species, as is done by Hooker fil. and 

 by Rouy & Foucaud. There seems to be a real (though a small) 

 gap between each of them ; and if they are not kept as separate 

 species, the resulting aggregate becomes so unwieldy that more 

 confusion is caused by their union than by their separation. In 

 particular, the interesting distribution of the segregate forms 

 becomes lost sight of or at least obscured. 



As to the subdivisions of Syme's aggregate B. baudotii (or 

 B. obtusiflorus, as it must now be named), Syme's varietal names 

 appear to be the earliest ; and, if this is so, they must be adopted 

 by those who regard Godron's two plants as being of varietal 

 rank and who follow the international rules of botanical nomen- 

 clature. Godron's two plants are undoubtedly very closely 

 related ; and few, if any, students of Batrachian Ranunculi will 

 desire either that they should be kept up as distinct species, or 

 placed apart from each other as subdivisions of different species. 

 Fries's plant {B. marimom) too is extremely close to those of 

 Godron : in fact, it was reduced by Godron to a variety of his 

 B. baiidotii ; and both Hooker fil. and Rouy & Foucaud follow 



* This is R. aquatilis L. Sp. PI. 556 (1753) excl. vars. ; = R. diversifolius 

 Gilibert (1782) emend. Kouy Sz Foucaud (1893), non Schrank (1789). 



K 2 



