74 THE JOURNAL OP BOTANY 



the species under discussion and its near allies. He there (p. 352) 

 gives as the aggregate sipecies.Statice Gmelini Willd., and sub- 

 divides it into a typica; ft scoparia (= scoparia Pall.) consisting 

 of three forms, 1 minor, 2 scorpioidea, 3 ramosissima [ = Meyeri 

 Boiss.) ; 7 steiroclada ; and 8 tomentella consisting of two forms, 

 1 trachycauUs, 2 glabella. 



This exhaustive paper shows that much time and thought had 

 been given to these difficult and varying forms, but I should be 

 unwilling to adopt Trautvetter's classification, as I have yet to be 

 convinced that tomentelltcm cannot be clearly and specifically (as 

 far as any Limonium may) separated from all Gmelini forms by 

 the shape of the calyx and the presence in varying quantity of 

 minute hairs on scape, leaves or bracts. 



I have not seen examples verified by Trautvetter of the forms 

 trachycauUs and glabella; he says that they may be distinguished 

 respectively by a hairy and a glabrous scape, and that trachycauUs 

 is the normal plant. I have never seen any example of tomen- 

 tellum with an absolutely glabrous scape, although the amount of 

 hairiness varies a good deal in individuals, and it may be possible 

 that the more glabrous specimens indicate a crossing of tomen- 

 tellum with L. Gmelinii. 



Statice sareptana Becker. Although this plant is mentioned 

 by Becker in 1854 (Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc. I. p. 454), the first descrip- 

 tion I can find of it is in 1858 in the same Journal (xxxi. I. p. 12). 

 The following is a translation of the diagnosis:—" Statice sareptana 

 has hitherto been taken for a young plant of >S. latifoUa. It is, 

 however, a good species, as the old plants show always thin roots, 

 smaller, not very rough leaves, few, not very patent branches, 

 longer, redder flowers and narrower, brown seeds. S. latifoUa 

 has, as is well-known, broad, almost black seeds, leaves one foot 

 long and very rough, and ' fathom-long ' (fadenlange) 1-3 inch 

 thick roots. The leaves of both species are always dry and never 

 exude salt like the leaves of S. tomentella, to which, when they 

 dry, white salt frequently adheres." 



Becker evidently considered his plant as related to S. latifoUa 

 rather than S. tomentella, but after a careful examination of a 

 number of authentic specimens of S. sareptana, named by Becker 

 himself, and a comparison with numerous plants of tomentella 

 (some verified by Becker) and latifoUa, I have come to the con- 

 clusion that we must either consider it distinct from both or class 

 it as a variety of L. tomentellum. Nyman (Conspec. Fl. Europ. 

 609, 1881) adopts the latter course, calling it, however, a sub- 

 species, and Gandoger (Nov. Conspec. Fl. Europ. 396, 1910) follows 

 this arrangement. In the examination above referred to I was 

 much struck by the amount of variation as regards hairiness of 

 scape, leaves and bracts. In some examples the bracts were 

 practically glabrous, in others distinctly hairy, and even on the 

 same individual, variations occurred. This hairiness of bract 

 surely indicates an affinity with L. tomentellum, as the bracts of 

 S. latifoUa are quite glabrous. 



For the present, I prefer to regard it as a variety of L. tomen- 



