SHOUT NOTES 275 



I do not remember seeing or hearing of Bracken epiphytic upon a 

 tree ; although this fern is so tenacious of life and sometimes appears 

 in strange places — for example, about six years ago a few small fronds 

 had pushed their way- between the stone steps outside the Senate House 

 at Cambridge. — H, S, Thompson. 



MiMULUS MOSCHATUS. Reference has been made to the frequent 

 scentlessness of Mimulus moschatus : from a note in The Garden of 

 August 10 (p. 302) it would appear that the scent ap2:)ears and 

 disappears in the same plant : " Last year it was fragrant as of yore. 

 This spring I eagerly awaited it and it came up scentless. But a few 

 days ago, after a thunderstorm, its perfume returned." In the same 

 paper for Aug. 24 (p. 320) another correspondent writes : — " I have 

 studied Mimulus moschatus now for close on fifteen years in order 

 to try to find some solution for its gradual loss of scent. Five or six 

 years ago plants could still be found which retained their scent ; but 

 now it seems impossible to find any with the least suspicion of it. I 

 have observed the musk in many places, including several in Scotland 

 and in all parts of England. I have never during all these years seen 

 it visited by insects, and I have come to the conclusion that it has 

 arrived at self-fertilization and so no longer needs to manufacture 

 scent to attract insects. I wonder if anyone else has noticed tliis. I 

 can remember watching flies and bees visiting it when I was a child." 



Geuii chiloense. In looking through Maund's Botanic Garden 

 I find a note on the plant usually knoAvn by this name in which it is 

 stated that in Sweep's British Flower Garden it is called G. Quellyou. 

 Tlie latter name is quoted in Index Kewensis as of " Hort. Edinb. ex 

 Lindl. Bot. Keg. sub t 1348," no reference being made to its publica- 

 tion by Sweet: G. chiloense, to which it is referred, is cited as of 

 " Balb. ex Ser. in DC. Prod. ii. 5-51." Seringe, howevei*, merely 

 quotes Balbis's name as a synonym of G. coccineum Sibth. & Sm., with 

 which it was at that time regarded as identical. Lindley (Bot. Keg. 

 1088) also places Balbis's plant, of which he gives a full description 

 based on plants communicated by that author to the garden of the 

 Horticultural Society, under G. coccineum, but expresses the strongest 

 doubt whether the Greek and the Chilian plants were identical ; this 

 doubt a subsequent investigation of Sibthorp's specimen enabled him 

 to confirm in Bot. Keg t. 1318, where he adopts the name chilense 

 (so spelt) for the species. Meanwhile Sweet (/. c.) had already pub- 

 lished the plant as G. Quellyon^s. native name quoted by Feuillee, 

 to wliose description of the plant Lambert had directed his attention : 

 and this, by Art. 37 of the Vienna Rules which states that " citation 

 in synonymy is not valid," is the name which must stand, as the 

 following table will show : 



Geum Quellyon Sweet, Brit. Fl. Gard. iii. 292 (March, 1829) : 

 Hort. Ed. ex Lindl. Bot. Reg. 1348 in sj'n. 

 G. coccineum Ser. in DC. Prodr. ii. 551 (1825) ; Lindl. Bot. Reg. 



1088 (1827) ; Ind. Kew. i. 102(5: non Sibth. & Sm. 

 G. chiloense Balb. ex- Ser. I. c. in svn. ; ex Lindl. /. c. in svn. 

 G. chilense Lindl. Bot. Meg. 1348 '(Aug. 1830). 

 G. chiloense Maund, Bot. Gard. iii. n. 273 (Sept. 1830). 



