100 



THE Jol'HNAL OF BOTANY 



loiig.-r and more abundunt than in that form. The carpels however 

 are glabrous, and with the wrinkles forming scarcely any meshes • the 

 petals are smaller, and of a deeper rose-colour." The localities given 

 are " on the shingly beach at Grand Cobo, Guernsey," where Syme had 

 himself gathered it, and Torquay, sent him by Mr. C Eyre Parker 

 G. purpureum grows in both of these districts and there is therefore' 

 little doubt that Syme both knew G. purpureum and that heintended 

 it by his var. modestum. (I have not seen herb. Syme.) Symes's 

 account is therefore quite sound, except that he cites as doubtful 

 synonyms G Ban Lindley and G. Robertianum var. maritimum 

 tfab, He indicates m a footnote that he knew nothing of either of 

 these plants, so their inclusion signifies nothing. It is evident that 

 Syme did not understand Babington's use of the term " wrinkled;' 

 but included as wrinkles the fine reticulate lines also. These lines 

 cannot be properly termed " wrinkles,"and the fruits of G. Robert ian urn 

 and the var. maritimum. have only one or two wrinkles at the top of 

 the fruit, whereas those of G. purpureum have them much more 

 numerous. Naturally Babington, to distinguish his from his y, 

 both shore plants, mentioned that in var. maritimum the fruit was 

 wrinkled only at the top, doing so not to distinguish it from typical 

 G. Bobertianum but from G. purpureum. 



But it is in Syme's account of " var. purpureum " that we find the 

 whole source of confusion. He says it " is common on shingle in the 

 south of England; I have found it near Kingsdown, Kent, and at 

 Shoreham, in Sussex," and cites Vill. and E. B. S. 2(348. It is the 

 Shoreham form that was mainly intended, for he describes it as 

 " subglabrous, with the pedicels and sepals rather sparingly glandular- 

 pubescent" (the latter part being probably due to his inclusion of the 

 Kingsdown plant). In this sense the* name has been used (see 

 National Herb.) by Newbould, Trimen, Marshall, Hilton, and Riddels- 

 dell, etc.) ; but why Syme was unable to perceive that the Eng. Bot. 

 figure was almost exactly like the plant he had gathered in Guernsey 

 and named modestum, 1 find it impossible to imagine. In the footnote 

 referred to above he says, " As Br. Lindley speaks of his G. Bail 

 having the calyx shaggy, I suppose it must be referred to var. 

 instead of var. y." Yet the E. B. figure of G. purpureum has a very 

 hairy calyx and for that same reason should have been correctly placed 

 to the var. modestum. Syme also says "The carpels resemble those 

 of var. fi, but are more closely wrinkled . . . ," which is the exact 

 opposite of what the plants he had himself gathered would have shown 

 had he examined them again. He adds "This is certainly the plant 

 represented in Forster's 'English Botany' Supplement as G-. pur- 

 pureum" ; it certainly is nothing of the kind, but the position in 

 regard to both Syme's account and the plants themselves should in 

 future be quite clear. 



In conclusion, a note on G. Bobertianum x purpureum. The 

 heavy frosts of 191S-9 exterminated all the G. purpureum (a southern 

 plant) in my garden, and in 1919 only G. Bobertianum, the var. 

 intermedium, and intermediates between these, were to be found. To 

 my surprise, in 1920 plants with .small flowers as in G. purpureum 



