108 



THK t'LOllA OF BEllKSHlRE. 



form which, as Mr. Druce says, "occurs occasionally with the 

 type " ; but who would dream of naming it as a distinct variet) ? 



These three examples, taken literally at random, will suffice to 

 show the evidence on which Mr. Druce would add new forms to 

 our British lists. It is only fair to say that occasionally Mr. Druce 

 enunciates a sound principle which it is to be regretted he has not 

 more generally followed ; thus, after having identified six of the 

 Jordanic species of Erophila, he says : " I cannot claim certainty for 

 the foregoing determinations, as without type-specimens it is most 

 difficult in such critical forms to be certain of the correct identifi- 

 cation." In this case, however, one is tempted to ask why " type- 

 specimens" were not consulted, as many of Jordan's species, authen- 

 ticated by himself, are in the National Herbarium ; and still more 

 why, in such uncertainty, more than a page should be devoted to 

 general talk and quasi-determination of these " micro-species." 



The following are examples of the new varieties established by 

 Mr. Druce in the present work : — 



Malva sijlvestrls. " Var. laslocarpa, mihi. The carpels are 

 described in English Botany as being glabrous, but specimens 

 have been found with hairy carpels at Abingdon. ... In other 

 respects the plant does not appear to differ from the type." On 

 this most variable of characters Mr. Druce does not hesitate to 

 encumber our nomenclature with a new name. But this is not all. 

 How is Mr. Druce's plant distinguished from the var. dasycarpa of 

 Beck (Fl. Nieder-Oesterr. 538) (1890)— " Theilfruchte reichlich 

 Kurzhaar g " — with which Rouy and Foucaud (Fl. France, iv. 34) 

 (1837) unite in part var. eriocarpa Boiss. (Fl. Or. i. 819) ? These 

 authors add other characters basides that of " carpelles poilus," 

 which tend to confirm the distinctness of the plant as a variety. 

 Incidentally one notices " var. micrantha Bromf. (Fl. Vectensis, 80) 

 (1856). This was described by its author as having flowers only a 

 quarter''' of the normal size, and of a deeper and more uniform 

 purple colour." Bromfield gives other characters, but even the 

 above hardly justify Mr. Druce in including this name in his book 

 on the strength of *' plants with flowers about half the normal size." 



Vicia gemcUd Crantz. " Var. fmmssima mihi. Leaves narrow 

 and acute. Hilum as in V. gemella. V. gracilis auct. var. not of 

 Lois. E. tetraspenimm L. var. tenuifolium Fries, Fl. Suec. 23. 

 E. tenuissiiniun Pers. Syn. ii. 309." 



I cite this note in full, because it presents examples of various 

 (although not all) of the inconveniences to which Mr. Druce's 

 method of dealing with names must give rise. The name tenuissima 

 "mihi," is, I presume, taken from Persoon's Enmm tenuissimum. 

 This is, of course, a doubtful species, but, so far as I have looked 

 up the matter, the best-known authorities — e. g. DC. (Prod. ii. 367), 

 Nyman (Conspect. 212), Boissier (Fl. Orient, ii. 496), Koch (Syn. 

 ed. i. 198 (1838), ed. 3, i. 689 (1892), Willkomm & Lange (Prod. 

 Fl. Hisp. ii. 307), and the hidex Kewensis — agree in referring 

 it to V. gracilis Lois. I am curious to know on what ground Mr. 



" Scarcely a quarter " are Bromfield 's words. 



