MORANDl's ' HISTORICA BOTANTCA PRACTICA ' 217 



that before it was bound this was intended to be prefixed to the 

 "Dilucidatio." 



The " eleven sheets of similar drawings of medicinal plants," 

 which were bound in the same volume, are very inferior in interest 

 and execution, and clearly have nothing to do with Moi-andi. 



It may be added that the volume will shortly be rebound in 

 accordance with the above account. 



James Britten. 



SHORT NOTES. 



Valertanella rimosa (p. ISG). The Eev. E. S. Marshall's 

 hairy -fruited form of this bears at least three names ; there are 

 probably others: V. Auricula DC. /5. dasycarpa Rcht. fl. germ, 

 excurs. i. 19S (1831). V. Auricnln DC. fl. lasiocarpa Koch, Syn. 

 Deut. Schw. fl. 34<1 (1888). V. Auricula DC. fl. pubescens Coss. & 

 Germ. fl. env. Paris, 3G1) (1845). The plant is figured in Reichb. ic. 

 crit. i. f. 130 and Mutel, Fl. fr. xxv. f. 213.— C. E. Salmon. 



P^ONiA PEREGRINA Mill. In the description accompanying 

 plate 8742 of the Botanical Magazine, Dr. Stapf gives an interesting 

 account of the history of this species, and unravels the confusion 

 which has attended it. The name was published by Miller (Gard. 

 Diet. ed. 8, no. 3), who "appears to have known the plant thus 

 designated by him only from tlie figures given by earlier writers. 

 There is no example of the species among his specimens in the Bank- 

 sian herbarium ; the onlj^ sheet there on which Miller has written the 

 name P. peregrina bears two small specimens, both received by him 

 from the Paris Garden ; these two specimens belong to two distinct 

 species ; neither of the two is the ' red peony of Constantinople,' " 

 inuler which name Parkinson described and figured it in his Pat-adisns 

 (pp. 342, 343). " One, the more meagre of the two, appears to be 

 but a form of our common garden Peony with quite glabrous leaves ; 

 the other represents a type which occurs in the mountains of 

 southern France, and corresponds with _P. monticola Jordan. Into 

 the pitfall thus prepared the first to stumble was [Sims, who (Bot. 

 Mag. t. 1050)] published as P. peregrina, 'upon the authority of 

 the Banksian herbarium,' not the Byzantine plant to which the name 

 belongs, but the plant of Provence and Languedoc which Miller had 

 mistaken for it." Dr. Stapf proceeds to trace the progress of the 

 error, and points out that "as early as 1818 [1817] the right of the 

 plant to rank as a species had been reindicated by [George] Anderson," 

 in Trans. Linn. Soc. xii. 273, " who, overlooking the confusion, re- 

 named it P. decora " : the name -peregrina, however, of course 

 stands. 



