274; THE JOURNAL OF JJOTANT 



of Koch's Si/nopsis, p. 205, srys that these do not always show their 

 characteristic length, but in winter-Howering specimens are often 

 i'ound hardly exceeding the leaf. Boissier describes them " folio 

 plerumque longioribus " as against those of Jiliformis, " folio mul- 

 ioties longioribus." Now it is precisely this contrast that Poiret was 

 concerned to point out, for he had described those of Jiliformis as 

 "au moins quatre fois plus longs que les feuilles." * 



• (2) This statement, if Poiret really meant it, is by far the 

 gravest objection. Grenier says " du moment que Poiret declare 

 avoir vu la plante vivante, et atiirme qiie la coroUe est plus petite que 

 le calice il ne me parait plus possible d'appliquer a notre plante le nom 

 propose par lui." Lehmann, however (p. 3^5), recalls the observa- 

 tion of Bateson & Pertz (in Proc. Cambr. Phil. Soc. x. 2, p. 78 ; 

 1S99), that small corollas occur in V. Bucchaumii as an anomalj^, 

 and states that in the botanical garden at Leipzig in the summer of 

 1907 he found plants in which all the corollas were smaller than 

 the calyx, whether indicating a hereditar}^ race or due to some special 

 local condition. My ow^i explanation of Poiret's statement is simjDler, 

 though I admit that it is a mere guess. I fancy that *' corolle un 

 peu plus courte " was a mere slip of the pen for " corolle un peu plus 

 longue." 



(3) It is to this that another of Grenier's criticisms is directed. 

 " Les caracteres de la capsule donnes par Poiret ne peuvent qu'aug- 

 menter les doutes deja si legitimes, car il dit ; capsule a peine de la 

 longueur du calice, a deux lobes ventrus. Or voila encore des traits 

 qui ne conviennent point a notre plante, dont la capsule comprimee 

 est tou jours plus courte que le calice." Observe that two separate 

 objections are raised («) to the comparative length of capsule and 

 calyx, and {b) to the form of the capsule. As to («) ; where is the 

 contradiction ? Poiret says ''hardh^ so long as the calyx" ; Grenier 

 says that is wrong because it is always " shorter than the calyx." 

 Surely it is ridiculous hairsplitting to reject Poiret's name on the 

 difference between '* shorter than " and " hardl}^ so long as." Leh- 

 mann judiciously ignores this objection and only takes notice of (Jb), 

 the form of the capsule. But on this point both he and Grenier are 

 grossly unfair, quoting " lobes ventrus " but omitting the word 

 " divergents " ! It is quite true that " ventrus " is objectionable, for 

 the ripe capsule is compressed, as described by Tenore. But whoever 

 will take the trouble to look at the capsules while still green on the 

 live plant, will see that they have not yet developed the character 

 " compressed and carinate " which they acquire later. 



If Poiret was describing the plant in an early stage it would 

 account for the " lobes ventrus " ; for the short llower-stalks ; and 

 possiblj^ even for the small corollas. But what about the " lobes 

 divergents " ? This phrase, so carelessly — or carefully — omitted by 

 Grenier and by Lehmann, is absolutely conclusive for Buxhaumii. 

 It will not fit any other European species of the section, and is fatal 

 tf) Lehmann's unfortunate suggestion tliat Poiret's plant may be 

 V. j)olita Fries. He hints, as an alternative, that it may be an 



* This contrast is alone sufficient to condemn Williams's identification. 



