SHORT NOTES AND QUERIES. 79 



Philippines by Haenke, and is excellently figured by Presl under the 

 name of Scolopendrium longifolium, in Rel. Haenk., tab. 9, fig. 1. The 

 two plants resemble one aaother in general habit, but whilst the 

 Philippine plant \ has exactly the fructification of ordinary Scolo- 

 pe7idrium, that is, two involucres springing from neighbouring veins 

 and joining in the space between, in Biplora the centre of the sorus 

 corresponds with the vein, in the same way as in Diplazium. To put 

 it in another form, in Scolopendrium the sorus is seated between the 

 veins, in Biplora it is seated upon them. We do not ackuowledo-e 

 the genus Micropodium, because in fructification the species agree with 

 either Asplenium or Scolopendrium, diff'ering only in the presence of a 

 distinct articulation at the base of the stipe, which occurs also in this 

 Biplora. Besides this essential difi'erence, there are at least two good 

 characters of specific value to separate Mdcleay's Solomon Islanl 

 from Haenke's Philippine plant. The former has the veins twice as 

 far apart and the sori, running regularly all the way up the veins 

 from the midrib of the frond to its edge, not stopping short 

 regularly a distinct space below their summit and above their base. 

 The stipe also is about three times as long in the Philippine Island 

 plant as in the other ; but this, perhaps, is not worth much. So that 

 I need scarcely say that I hold my good friend, Dr. Kuhn, to be mis- 

 taken this time, as he is very rarely, in his identification ; for as a 

 general rule the difi'erence between us is the other way : I mean that 

 I put together what he separates. — J. G. Biker. 



Simvr GRMQv^, Linn. — There has been great uncertainty as to what 

 this TJmbellifer might be, the diagnosis (Sp. plant, ed. i., p. 252; ed. ii., 

 p. 362) being meagre and unsufficient, and no specimen existing in the 

 Linnean herbarium. De Candolle (Prod, iv., p. 143) refers it with a 

 query to Kundmannia sicu^a, DC, and says it differs from his Ligua- 

 ticwn? grcscum (I.e., ip. 159). A specimen labelled by Linnaeus him- 

 self exisits in the herbarium, now in the British Museum, of the 

 Hort. Cliffortianus, in which book (p. 98) the plant was described 

 under the name Siuni foliis duplicato-pinnatis. It proves it to be 

 not Kundmannia but Bonannia, a monotypic genus of Umbelliferee 

 founded by Gussone (Fl, Sic. Syn., i., p. 335) and maintained by Ben- 

 tham (Gen. Plant., i., p. 910) who, however, had not seen a specimen. 

 The Linnean plant agrees well with those in Todaro's Flora Sic. Exsic. ; 

 neither have ripe fruit. Ligusticum ? groecum, DC. and Ferula nudi- 

 caulis, Spreng., are both referable to this ; but no specimens have been 

 recently collected in Greece. — H. Teimex. 



It would be hard indeed to trace the filiation between Daucm 

 Carota and Scrophularia aquatica, but for all that I have lately had 

 occasion to note the underlying unity of constructional arrangements 

 that is common to these two plants, at least, under certain circum- 

 stances. Here are the facts : — 1 Baucus Carota : monstrous flower — 

 calyx free, of five distinct sepals ; petals 5 free ; stamens 5, hypogy- 

 nous, free ; carpels 2 free, leafy, placed right and left of the axis ; 

 ovules abortive. This I take it may properly be compared to a case 

 of regular peloria, if it cannot be fairly included under that category. 

 2. Scrophulari aaquatica: monst. fl,: — calyx free, of five distinct sepals ; 



