NOTES ON ASARUM. 97 



as to how far it can be regarded as a publication. There are 

 nowadays so many botanical journals that it seems unwise to 

 adopt a mode of printing which is, at least, eccentric ; and we 

 venture to hope that Mr. Ashe's subsequent "Contributions" will 

 be more suitably published, as well as less open to criticism from a 

 botanical point of view. 



Mr. Ashe states his case as follows : — 



" The nomenclature of the Virgiuicum group presents some 

 difficulty as to which species represents the original Asariun 

 virr/inicum of Linnaeus. Plukenet's figure (Aim. 55, t. 78, f. 2) 

 to which Linnaeus refers might represent any species of this group : 

 it poorly figures A. macranthuui; somewhat h^iiQT A. minus \ and 

 might have been intended to represent either A. Menimingeri or 

 A. heterophylliim. The Grovonian [sic] description does not add 

 any information. I have thought it preferable to follow the 

 practice of several European botanists and ignore, in such a case 

 of uncertainty, the Linnaean name, as it represents a group of at 

 least four species rather than a single plant." 



If Mr. Ashe had taken the trouble to inquire as to specimens 

 instead of publishing conclusions based on (what he considers) a 

 doubtful figure and an imperfect description, he would have found 

 that "the Linnean name," so far from representing "a group of at 

 least four species," represents but one, and that there is no " un- 

 certainty" whatever about it. 



Linnaeus bases his vin/inicuvi on the descriptive phrases em- 

 ployed by Gronovius and Plukenet, and on the figure of the latter. 

 In Gronovius's herbarium are three specimens, which vary some- 

 what in appearance, as one has an old leaf persisting from the 

 previous year, while the other two have younger leaves contemporary 

 with the flowers. The large series of specimens which we have 

 from Rugel show both old and new leaves on the same plant. 



In the Sloane Herbarium we have three specimens from 

 Plukenet, two of which (Hb. Sloane xc, fol. 20, and cii, foL 154) 

 are written up by himself, while the third (Hb. Sloane xcv, fol. 108) 

 is referred by Sherard to Plukenet's figure. The specimen in 

 vol. cii. looks at first sight somewhat different, as it has only 

 young leaves. Mr. Ashe's view that Plukenet's figure may repre- 

 sent any of four species seems to us in the face of this evidence 

 absolutely untenable ; no one of his specimens is anything but 

 virginicum, and although the figure is not (as sometimes happens) 

 obviously drawn from any one specimen, there can be no doubt as 

 to its correspondence with them. It is equally clear, from the 

 specimens of his A. minus and of A. heterophyllum and A. Memmingeri 

 which Mr. Ashe has been good enougli to send us, that the first of 

 these — A, minus — is identical with A. virgiuicum L., although the 

 flower is somewhat larger than in the type-specimens. 



A note may here be added on another Asarum, which, although 

 first announced as a species in 1894, has already, by the careless 

 liberality of American botanists, been enriched with a considerable 

 synonymy, and cannot possibly maintain the name which they have 



