NOTE ON THE PRECEDING COMMUNICATION. 265 



and also having occasionally two of the calyx- segments much 

 larger than the others. 



I have di'ied a good number of specimens for distribution 

 through the Botanical Exchange Club. 



NOTE ON THE PEECEDINO COMMUNICATION. 

 By Henry Trimen, M.B., F.L.S. 



With reference to the plant above referred to by Mr. Stratton, 

 which I collected in the early summer of 1866, on White Horse 

 Hill, Berkshire, as Gentiana canipestris ; though a subsequent 

 examination has clearly shown that it is not that species, 

 it is less easy to refer it distinctly to G. Amarella. Under this 

 very variable species there is little difficulty, to my mind, in 

 placing Mr. Stratton 's certainly striking form from the Isle of 

 Wight. On comparing his si)ecimens w^ith other spring-flowering 

 ones fi'om Croydon (A. Bennett) and Tring (E. Forster), both of 

 which have also 4-merous flowers, the chief points of difference in 

 the Isle of Wight plant are seen to be the much longer pedicels, 

 more striking inequality of the calyx- segments, and larger and 

 more branched, habit ; its occiu-rence in such abundance is also 

 worthy of remark. Eay recorded in 1696 (Syn. Stu-p. Brit., ed. 2, 

 p. 156), under the name of G. fugax verna sen pnecox, what was 

 probably a similar eaiiy-flow^ering variety of G. Amarella ; it was 

 gathered near Kendal. 



I may add a few remarks as to the nomenclature of these forms 

 or varieties. Mr. Stratton had suggested attaching the name of 

 Dr. Bromfield to his plant, — a most appropriate course, were it 

 not that there appear to be already several existing names. There 

 can be little doubt that it is G. uliginosa, Willd., which is very 

 characteristically figured in Eeichenbach's Plant. Crit., t. 58. 

 Schur (Enum. Plant. Transylv., p. 461 ) places this under G. Amarella 

 as var. ft. ulif/inosa, and quotes yet another name as a synonym, 

 G. gracilis, Nees. To the same form I refer specimens from Naples 

 (Huet de Pavilion, n. 392) labelled G. Colwmm, Ten. Dillenius 

 had long ago (Syn. Stirp. Brit., ed. 3, p. 275) rightly identified 

 Columna's figure (Ecphrasis, p. 221) of the Naples plant with 

 Eay's plant above noted ; but some subsequent writers have con- 

 founded it with G. campestris, which it clearly does not represent. 

 Bertoloni does not consider (Fl. Ital., iii. 97) Tenore's species 

 worth distinction even as a variety of G. Amarella, but then he 

 treats G. germanica in a similar manner. 



To return to my Berkshire sj)ecimens. These differ from all 

 tlie above in the wider form of the corolla- tube with blunt seg- 

 ments, and in having oblong-spathulate obtuse leaves. All the 

 flowers are 4-merous, and the pairs of calyx- segments very unequal. 



The only other specimens I have seen which can be considered 

 as probably the same are fi-om Tyrol (Huter), and are labelled 

 '^ G. gerinanica, var. ft. pygmcea'' ; and on the whole I am more 



2 M 



