THE GEJfUS EUPHRASIA AND E. MINIMA 335 



THE GENUS EUPHRASIA AND E. MINIMA. 

 By H. Stuaet Thompson, F.L.S. 



There is an interesting and apparently overlooked reference to, 

 and short description of, Euphrasia minima by the late John Ball, 

 F.R.S., in his paper " On Descriptions of some new Species, Subspecies, 

 and Varieties of Plants collected in Morocco by J, D, Hooker, Gr. Maw, 

 and J. Ball," in Journ. Bot. vol. xi. (1873) p, 272. This paper does 

 not appear to have been quoted by Townsend, Hiern, Marshall, 

 Bucknall, Pugsley, nor any other writer on Enplirasia in this 

 Journal. 



Mr. Hiern pointed out (Z. c. 1909, p. 165) that Townsend in 

 Journ. Bot. 1884, p. 161, discussed at considerable length the question 

 whether EupJirasia officinalis L. represents a single polymoriDhic 

 species or a collective species ; and at that time Townsend expressed 

 the belief that all the European forms with which he was then 

 acquainted *' are members of a single polymorphic species, and that 

 none of. these members can be ranked as of a higher grade than a 

 subspecies." This opinion, of course, he afterwards modified, as 

 mentioned by Mr. Hiern. But Townsend did quote in this paper on 

 Euphrasia officinalis (1. c.) some remarks in a letter from John Ball 

 in which Ball said that a study of the forms should be connected 

 with that of the insect- visitors. 



Writing in this Journal (1873, 271) Ball expressed very similar 

 views to Townsend's, when the former was illustrating his ideas of 

 species, subspecies, and varieties, for he said : "In our islands the forms 

 included under this name [^Euph^Yisia officinalis'] differ so slightly, 

 that, as I believe, no botanist has proposed to designate them by dis- 

 tinct specific names, but on the continent of Europe .... we find a large 

 number of such forms presenting wide differences of shape and aspect. 

 The floral organs, indeed, vary little except in size, but the leaves are 

 so dissimilar that if only a few be selected for comparison most 

 botanists would at once refer them to different species." He then 

 proceeded to speak of E. salisburgensis, and remarked that '" The 

 careful observer will, however, find that all the differences which 

 mark these so-called species are no more than exaggerations of the 

 slighter variations which the common plant everywhere exhibits, and 

 further that the groups of forms belonging to one region do not 

 exactly correspond with those inhabiting a different region of the 

 same continent." After a reference to Jordan, Ball adds that "most 

 botanists would rank the remainder as undoubted varieties of E. offi- 

 cinalis^'' and he proceeds : — 



" There is one among the forms closely allied to our common 

 Euphrasy which shows differences more marked and more constant 

 than the others. This is the E. minima of Schleichei*, a plant 

 inhabiting the higher regions of the Alps, Pyrenees, and Carpathians, 

 distinguished by its dwarf stature, very small, usually yellow flowers, 

 and shortly oval crenate leaves, much smaller than in any other plant 

 of the same group. The mere fact of the presence of this form on 

 several widelv dissevered mountain masses, while it is absent from 



