109 



NOTES ON BRITISH EUFHKASIAS.— I. 

 Br H. W. PuGSLET, B.A. 



About twenty years ago I began to pay attention to the genus 

 Ewphrasia and collected a number of forms, most of which were sent 

 to the late Mr. F. Townsend for determination. In later years I 

 have continued to augment my collection of these plants, both 

 British and Continental, with the intention of working them out in 

 detail, when opportunity offered, with Wettstein's Monograph and 

 the original descriptions. The fortunate occasion has not yet arrived, 

 but as Mr. W. C. Barton was desirous that I should add my criticisms 

 to the rather numerous contributions sent this year to the Botanical 

 Exchange Club, I have lately made a partial survey of my gatherings 

 in conjunction with the plants sent to the Club, and the succeeding 

 notes embody some of the results that seem of special interest. 



In reviewing the European forms of the true Eiq^hrasicB, it must 

 be borne in mind that the points of distinction between the alleged 

 species are relatively trivial, and that one species only, E. officinalis 

 L., was commonly recognized by British botanists j^rior to the advent 

 of Townsend's account in this Journal in 1897. This work accurately 

 applied to the forms then known in Britain the views of Wettstein, 

 and marked a great advance on the treatment hitherto accorded here 

 to the genus. But it is perhaps regrettable that Townsend always 

 followed so closely in Wettstein's steps, for a peiaisal of the Mono- 

 graph suggests that more has yet to be done in the grouping of 

 the forms recognized as species and in establishing their natural 

 affinities. 



The bases of segregation of Wettstein's three series, ParviflorcSy 

 GrandiJiorcB, and Angustifoli(S, seem open to serious criticism as 

 primary group-characters, although possibly no better means of dis- 

 tinction can be found among plants whose differences are so slight. 

 The validity of the elongation of the corolla-tube after anthesis, or 

 the reverse, seems especially doubtful, and at best, is rarely an obvious 

 and unmistakeable feature. My observations lead me to doubt its 

 constancy even in the single species, JE. Rostlwviana, as represented 

 in Britain ; and I notice that Mr. Bucknall tacitl}^ ignores it in 

 British Eiiphrasice, published as Supplement I. to vol. Iv. of this 

 Journal (1917), by referring to E. campesfris, an undisputed member 

 of the Grand i^orce, the plant that he names var. neglect a, which he 

 admits has the corolla-characters of the Earvijlorce, 



A paper that deserves consideration in connection with the 

 British Eyebrights is that by M. Chabert, " Les Euphrasia ^q la 

 France," in the Bulletin de VHerhier Boissier for 1902. This 

 author recognizes about a dozen species as French, with a number of 

 varieties, and reduces the rank of some plants that Wettstein and 

 Townsend treated as species. 



Euphrasia minima Jacquin. 

 This species was first brought to notice as a British plant by 

 Miss Helen Saunders in a short note in this Journal for 1909 (p. 30), 



JoUK^AL f)F BuTANY. VOL. 57. [JULi, 1919.] O 



