THE SYNONYMY OF POTAMOGETON KUFESCENS SCHRAD. 243 



when writing. Since that time I have seen or consulted a good 

 many specimens and authorities, with a view to the discovery of 

 the earhest name given to the plant in one or other of its forms. 

 Mainly by the kindness of Prof. Caruel, of Florence, I am enabled 

 to say that, as far as one can judge at present, the earliest name is 

 P. alpinus Balbis in ' Miscellanea Botanica,' j). 13 (1804) : * P. 

 annulatus Bellardi was undoubtedly published in the same year, but 

 later. 



P. alpinus occurs at p. 329 of the 7th volume of the 'Memoires 

 de I'Academie de Turin'; the P. annulatus Bellardi, at p. 447, 

 Balbis, in an autograph letter accompanying a presentation copy of 

 his Misc. Bot. to the Florence Museum, speaks of his ' Memoire ' as 

 just published. 



In the note before referred to, I mentioned that Seidls' MS. 

 name (piirpurascens, 1812) was published by Fieber in 1838, but 

 Presl had already done so in his Fl. Cechica, p. 37 (1819). Many 

 authors quote Koth's "P. serratus'' (Fl. Germ. (1788-1800) i. 73, 

 and ii. 205) for rufosccns, but Roth refers to the Fl. Danica plate, 

 t. 195, as his plant, and that plate certainly represents P. lucens 



L. (agg.). . -,. , .1 



P. serratum L. Sp. PI. ed. 1 (1753), p. 126, is, accordmg to the 

 specimen in his herbarium, simply a curious form of P. crispus L. ! 



Nolte gives P. serratus L. Sp. PI. as Zizii in Hansen's Herb. 

 Schl. Hoi. No. 1114 (Herb. Mus. Brit. !), but this must have been 

 a mere supposition, as Linnseus's description most clearly applies 

 to the specimen in his herbarium, and that is crispus ! but a most 

 extraordinary and abnormal form. 



In Sir J. E. Smith's herbarium at the Linnean Society are two 

 sheets (Nos. 13 and 14) of specimens of rufescens from " Herb. 

 Davall, 1802," named by Du Croz '' lanceolatum. H. 847?"; 

 Smith has added, " a bad name." Du Croz does not seem to have 

 pubhshed this name before, or after 1804. 



The following list is a contribution to the names placed by me 

 under rufescens as an aggregate species : — 



Potamogeton alpinus Balbis, Misc. Bot. p. 13 (1804). 



P. annulatus Bellardi, Mem. Acad. Turin, p. 447 (1804). 



P. obscurus DC. Fl. France, Supp. 5, p. 311 (1805). 



P.fluitans (Schum.) Horn. Fl. Danica, t. 1450 (1813). 



P. semipellucidus Koch et Ziz. Cat. PI. Pal. p. 18 (1814). 



? P. spathulatus Schrad. in Koch et Ziz. l. c. 



P. rufescens Schrad. ap. Cham. Ad. FL Berol. p. 5 (1815). 



P. jnirpurascens Seidl ap. Presl, Fl. Cechica, p. 37 (1819). 



P. lucens V. aiif/ustifolius Horn. Fl. Dan. t. 1G35 (1819). 



P. nervegerus Wolf! ap. R. et S. Mant. 3, p. 359 (1827). 



P. microstachys Wolf, ap Pt. et S. I. c. 



P.fluitans Smith, Eng. Fl. 1, p. 231 (1828). 



P. obtusiis Du Croz, ap. Gaud. Fl. Helv. 1, p. 468 (1828). 



[* Mr. Druce has already called attention to the claims of this name to 

 priority. See Journ. Bot. 18«7, p. 835.— Ed. Joukn. Bot.] 



R 2 



