5G THK .lOlJKXAL OF 130TANY 



Lepidium campestre var. LOivaiSTYLUM. Mr. Wilmott's second 

 note (Journ. Bot. 1917, 349) greatly interests me. I learn from it 

 the new fact that L. heteropliiillum may have a solitary stem, and 

 that L. cami^estre var. lonciistylnm A. G. More vs^as validly published 

 in 1860. It may be urged that Moi-e's name should be used instead 

 of my L. campestre f. plurlcinde (Die Gattung Lepidium, p. 94, in 

 N. Denkschr. all. schweiz. Ges. f. ges. Naturw. Bd. xli. 1907 : vol. xli. 

 of the periodical is dated 1916, but separate copies (my thesis for the 

 doctorate) were distributed in November 1906). I think, however, 

 this is not to be recommended, but that it would be preferable to 

 relegate More's name to sj^nonjany, as its retention would lead to 

 confusion. — A. Thellung. 



The Name Muxdia. In this Journal for 1889 (p. 262) and 

 1894 (p. 109) the origin of the name of this genus was discussed. 

 The name, which is usually quoted as of Kunth, was puldished in 

 H. B. K. Nov. Gen. v. 893, n., " 1821 " (recte 1823) without any 

 indication as to its dedication ; the fact however that it was based on 

 a South Afi-ican plant {Folyr/ala spinosa L.) led to the inference 

 that it commemorated, as suggested by Harvey (Gen. S. Af r. PL 26), 

 " M. Mundt, a most meritorious collector of South African plants " ; 

 and on this account Harvey changed the original spelling of the 

 name to Mioidtia. Subsequently however it was suggested that 

 Henry Mundj^ (1627 P-16S2) whose work was known to Linnaeus, 

 might have been intended. No information about the S. African 

 collector was traceable ; but I have lately come across a reference bv 

 W. J. Hooker (Bot. Mag. t. 3894 : 1842) in which he speaks of " the 

 Prussian botanist, the late Mr. Mund," as having sent hira specimens 

 from the Cape. Whether the name should be spelt " MuiuJtia," as 

 by Harvey, who seems to have been acquainted with the collector, or 

 ''''Mundia,'''' as first published and as supported by Hooker's reference 

 may be matter for discussion ; but it is clear that Heniy Mundy has 

 no claim to the commemoration. — James Brixtex. 



Status of Allium triquetrum in BR1TAIX^ In the Proceed- 

 ings of tlie Linneon Society, October 1917, p. SI, Dr. Stapf says 

 that he had put this down as doubtfully indiy'enous, but considers it 

 now as an alien. Davey, however {Flam of Ooniwall, p. 438), 

 says: — "Native (apparently). Hedges, borders of woods, sides of 

 streams, &c. Locally frequent " : he gives about thirty-four stations 

 for his four western districts. My own former view was that it had 

 most likely been introduced ; but I found it last June in two places 

 where there seemed to be no element of suspicion, viz. by a streamlet, 

 about a mile north of Helston, and among bushes on the coast, 

 between Landewednack and Cadgwith. As A. triquetrum grows 

 wild in Portugal and Spain, though not in Western France, it may be 

 a true member of our Lusitanian group in at least some of the 

 Cornish localities. — Edward S. Marshall. 



Gltceeia Foucaudii and G. festuc^formis. Dr. Stapf {1. c.) 

 writes: — "A revision of the British Atropis has convinced me of the 

 identity of A.festucceformis from Co. Down, Ireland, with A. Fou- 



