292 



EOTEYCHIUM MATRICARI^FOLIUM AND B. LANCEOLATUM. 



Stevensfcon, Ayrshire, in July, 1887. He was then residing, as 

 tutor, with a Glasgow family who occupied a marine villa at that 

 place. Several other specimens were obtained at the same time. 

 The death of his pupil caused a hurried return to Glasgow, and 

 Dr. St. Brody's own return to London ; and in the confusion the 

 plants were mislaid — the present specimen, however, was un- 

 expectedly found last autumn, inside an old catalogue. Proof 

 of these statements is afforded by recent correspondence (in my 

 possession) between Dr. St. Brody and the lady of the house, 

 recalling the incident of the discovery of the fern. Dr. St. Brody 

 says that he mentioned his "find" subsequently to several gentle- 

 men, but, owing to his loss of the corroborative specimens, the 

 subject was not followed up. 



The plant is unquestionably BotnjcJimm matrlcaricBfoUum A. Br. 

 It agrees perfectly with the figure of a continental specimen (as 

 rutaceum) given by Newman in the Phytolo/jist (v. 133), and in his 

 History of British Ferns (ed. 3, p. 322). I have compared it with 

 the Brit. Mus. and Kew Botrychiums, and its identification is fully 

 accepted by Mr. J. G. Baker. 



The bibliographical history of the species is curious. Swartz 

 first clearly distinguished it as a species in 1800, in Schrader's 

 Journal (ii. 110), and included it as such in his Synopsis Filicum, 

 p. 171 (1806) ; and subsequent botanists identified Ray's Lunaria 

 minor foliis dissectis therewith. The first edition of Ray's Synopsis, 

 p. 129 (1690), described three forms of Moonwort, Lunaria, of 

 which this was the third ; and the remark is made that Lawson 

 supposes it to be a variety, not a distinct species. It is, according 

 to Dillenius (R. Syn. ed. 3, p. 129), the same as Plukenet's Lunaria 

 hotrytis vmior pinnulis laciniatis, "of our northern parts" [Almagest. 

 p. 228, 1696). Ray himself {Synopsis, ed. 1 & 2) appears to cite 

 prior authorities, Gerard, Parkinson, I. Bauhin, and C. Bauhin, 

 only for his first form — the ordinary moonwort — and seems to have 

 been the earliest British botanist to separate scientifically the three 

 forms. He gives Westmoreland as the locality of the Lunaria 

 minor foliis dissectis, Dillenius adds Doody's opinion that this is a 

 distinct species, and says : " Mr. Doody received it from Sir Th. 

 Willughby, but hath since seen it several times gathered by our 

 Herb-women." 



From the time of Ray (1690) up to Withering's ed. 7 (1830), the 

 plant, as variety or species, was acknowledged in British floras. 

 It appeared in Hill's Flora Britannica (1760), in Hudson's Flora 

 Anqlica (1762 & 1778), and in Withering's successive editions 

 (1776-1830). 



Linnaeus, in Species Flantarmi, ed. 1, p. 1064 (1753), described 

 a var. y of Osmunda Lunaria, with a reference to Breynius (Cent. 

 183, fig. 93). The same figure is cited in vol. iii. (p. 982) of 

 Withering's ed. 7 (edited by his son) as "var. 3. Leaves cloven into 

 segments," evidently as equivalent to L. minor foliis dissectis. So also 

 is a variety mentioned by ]3olton, L'ilices Britannia, p. 5 (1785), but 

 this, from Bolton's reference to a figure in Gerard, is clearly meant 

 for Ray's second form, L. min. ramosa. Bolton does not allude to 



