LINN^US'S ' FLORA ANGLICA ' 19 



and he inserts in brackets " there are no additions to the 

 synonymy." But a glance at the works alluded to show that in 

 Ray. Syn. 136, 1724, we have "Kali geniculatum perenne fruti- 

 cosus procumbens Syn. ii. 62, 2, and geniculatum lignosum Pet. H. 

 Br. 9, 4," while in the Species Plantarwm, p. 5, 1762, Linnaeus 

 has inserted " Salicomia cauls erecto fruticoso," which is not to 

 be found in the first edition of 1753, and gives also the synonyms 

 taken from the first edition of " Salicomia sempervirens Sauv. 

 Monsp. 7, and Kali geniculatum majus Bauh. Pin. 289," which 

 are not given in Ray's Synopsis, and, as I have said, do not, I 

 think, refer to our British plant. 



m According to the view of Dr. Moss, which I have in no way 

 controverted, we have in the first edition of Species Plantar um 

 var. fruticosa meaning one plant, in the Flora Anglica another, 

 while in the second edition of the Species Plantarum the 

 original variety is raised to specific rank. But Linnean commen- 

 tators cannot have it both ways ; they cannot run with the hare 

 and hunt with the hounds. I may add that I have not associated 

 the plant of the Species Plantarum with any name. My remarks 

 are limited to the plant of Flora Anglica, which is based on the 

 Synopsis 136-2, this being S. radicans Sm., which is teste Dr. 

 Moss S. perennis Miller. 



If Salicomia fruticosa is written as a specific name (as in 

 the reprint) in Flora Anglica, and assuming that the work is 

 available for citation, it necessarily follows that it has priority 

 over the variety in the edition of Species Plantarum mentioned. 

 Competent botanical critics such as R. A. Pryor and, I believe, 

 the Messrs. Groves, have interpreted such names in a specific and 

 not varietal sense, and if the typography of the reprint is correct 

 they are not printed in italics, as is usually the custom of Linnaeus 

 in the Species Plantarum. But really my note on Salicomia 

 is quite an insignificant portion of my paper, being only used to 

 illustrate the difficulties which the acceptance of the Flora 

 Anglica for botanical citation might lead us into, and I think 

 Mr. Britten has blurred the issue by dwelling too much upon 

 matters which are really irrelevant to or have only a slight 

 connection with the point under discussion. 



May I reiterate that the Flora Anglica is practically a skeleton 

 list of nomina nucla, with identifications (such as they are) based 

 entirely on synonymy, without actual reference to plants for 

 comparison, or even to any other works dealing with English 

 botany; and, it is evident, was deliberately ignored by Linnaeus 

 in all his subsequent writings. The list as I have shown bristles 

 with errors, and much of it, especially with regard to the 

 new plants added to the Synopsis by Dillenius, is merely 

 guesswork. 



In unearthing it from oblivion, where it has remained un- 

 quoted and unsought for more than one hundred and fifty years 

 without any loss to botanical literature, nothing would be added 

 to the credit of its illustrious author, but, on the contrary, I am 

 convinced if it were brought into the arena of citation, it would 



c 2 



