TEEONICA BUXBAUMII 



273 



V. Tournefo7'ti I is in reality only suitable for V.JiUformis based on 

 F. orientalis etc. of Tourn. Cor. p. 7, and not for V. Buccbaumii, th| 

 phrase for which is not to be found in Tournefort. The only 

 synonyms quoted are V. filiformis Sm. and V. orientalis etc. Tourn. 

 and Buxb. t. xl. f. 1 : (N.B. fig. 1, not fig. 2 to which there is no allusion). 

 Then we are told that the root is perennial, which is obviously im- 

 possible for V. Buj;batcmii though less unintelligible for V.Jiliformis, 

 of which Boissier says " annua vel perennans." The capsules are 

 called " semiorbiculata obcordata," which is precisely applicable to 

 those of Jiliformis but not to those of Buxhaumii. On the other 

 hand the leaves are said to be " cordato-ovata grosse dentato-serrata " 

 which agrees with Buxhaumii but not Avith jiliformis. In short, 

 there is such a muddle in Gmelin's account that his name must be 

 unhesitatingly rejected for either species. The habitat he quotes is 

 " Carlsruhe in the fields at the Holzhof, emigrated a few years ago from 

 the botanical garden and now almost spontaneous." An escape from 

 a botanical garden may be any species, but it is in favour of Bux- 

 haumii that that form has established itself in later years over great 

 part of Europe, whevesisjilijbrmis has not done so. 



To come to the claims of V. persica Poir. Williams's identifi- 

 cation of this with V. JUiformis Sm. is certainly wrong, as Lehmann 

 has pointed out. Poiret cannot have intended V. jiliformis because 

 at p. 53^ he had already given a good account of that species, w^hich 

 he had seen in Lamarck's herbarium. Did he then mean V. Bux- 

 hauniii? I think so, in spite of the doubts expressed by Sjme 

 (Engl. Bot. vi. p. 153; 1866), by Grenier (Fl. Jur. p. 586; 1865), 

 and by Lehmann *. The last named author goes into the question 

 most minutely (pp. 343-346) but comes to no definite conclusion. 

 He was not really concerned to settle the identity of Poiret's plant, 

 because from his point of view the name persica would at most 

 amount to a synonym of Gmelin's Tournefortii. It is therefore all 

 the more odd that he should have been so microscopically obseivant 

 of the mote in Poiret's e3'e, whilst closing his own to the beam in< 

 Gmelin's : but then Poiret was a Frenchman and Gmelin a German.. 

 We must admit that Poiret's work in Diet. Enc^^cl. is notoriousl}'^ 

 full of inaccuracies ; nevertheless there is every probability that his; 

 V. persica is precisely V. Buxhaumii. He states that it grows in 

 Persia, but describes it from specimens cultivated in the Jardin des 

 Plantes at Paris ; he refers to no s3'nonym or figure. Objection has 

 been taken to this identification on account of three characters which 

 are said not to suit V. Buxhaumii. These are: (1) " Pedoncules .... 

 ordinairement un peu plus conrts que les feuilles. (2) La corolle 

 . . . . un peu plus court que le calice. (3) Capsule .... a peine 

 de la longueur du calice, a deux lobes ventrus divergents." 



To take these in order. (1) As Lehmann has pointed out, the- 

 remark about the flower-stalks is not fatal. Brand in the last edition^ 



* Syme nevertheless says " it is probable that the name F. persica ought to be- 

 adopted," and Grenier's objections were an afterthong-ht, for in G. & G. Fl. Fr.. 

 ii. p. 598 (1850) the name persica is used without comment. Eouy (Fl. Fr. xi.. 

 p. 53: 1909) uses V. Buxhaumii with V. persica " diagn. valde ambigua, charact. 

 iniaust." as synonymous. 



