248 THE JOUIWAL or BOTANY 



ing but little in the bulk) showing none of the above characteristics, 

 and I was puzzled. Here was a plant 12-16 cm. high, the stem- 

 leaves broad and rounded at the apex (recalling those of C. glomera- 

 tu77i), and the flowers were in a loose cyme the branches of which, 

 when in fruit, occupied sometimes a third or more the total height of 

 the plant. The ripe capsules were distinctly curved and about twice 

 as long as the calyx. 



The bract and other features pointed to C. semidecandrmn ; iipon 

 turning to books of reference etc., it seemed that my plant agreed 

 with the G. pelhicidum Chaub. in Saint-Amans Fl. Agenaise, p. 181, 

 t. 4. f. 2 (1821), which may be placed as a variety of the former 

 species. 



De Candolle (Prod. i. 416, 1824) allows G. pellucidum specific 

 rank, practically Latinizes Chaubard's description, strangely alters 

 that author's " petales moins longs que le calice " to " petalis calyce 

 longioribus," and concludes "An var. C. semidecandri? ^^ 



A possible arrangement of the British forms of G. semidecondrum 

 might be as follows :— 



Cebastium semidecandrum L. Sp. PI. 438 (1753). 



G. varians Coss. & Grerm. var. pellucidum C. & Gr. Fl. env. 

 Par. ed. 1, 38, Atlas fl. Par. v. f. 7-9 (1845), non 

 Chaub. 

 G. semi decnnd non L. a. genuinum Pouy & Fouc. Fl. Fr. 



iii. 220 (1896). 

 Exsicc. Dickson, Hort. Sice. fasc. 8, n. 11 ! G. Don, Herb. 



Brit. n. 59 ! 

 Icones. R. Syn. ed. 3, t. 15. f. 1 ; Vaill. Bot. Paris, t. 30. 

 f. 2; E. Bot. t. 1630, ed. 8, 220; Curt. Fl. Lond. 

 fasc. 2, t. 33 ; ed. 2. fasc. 3, t. 101 ; Fl. Danica, vii. 

 t. 1212 ; Kchb. Fl. Germ. v. t. 228. f. 4968. 

 Var. glandalosum Koch, Syn. ed. 2, 133 (1843). 

 Var. congesfum Gren. Monog. Cerast. 29 (1841) (see Journ. 



Bot.'l913, 17). 

 Var. pellucidum Celak. in Sitzungsber. bolim. Ges. Wiss. 

 p. 388 (1882) (nomen); Rouy & Fouc. Fl. Fr. iii. 220 

 (1896) ; G. pellucidum Chaub. {loc. cit.). 



EDWAED WALTER HUNNYBUN (1848-1918) 

 AND 'The Cambridge British Flora.' 



Although the late Mr. Hunn3'bun cannot be placed among those 

 who have added greatly to our knowledge of the British Flora in the 

 field, it is to his work that we are indirectly indebted for what 

 promises to be the most important history of its constituents. As is 

 generally known, The Gambridge British Flora originated with the 

 series of drawings which he had for many years been preparing. 

 Selections of these had been submitted from time to time to British 

 botanists and were exhibited at the Linnean Society : tlie high opinion 

 generally" expressed as to their value led to their acquisition by the 



