BOTRYCHIUM MATRICARI^FOLIUM AND B. LANCEOLATUM. 293 



that we are considering. In English Botany, ed. 1, v. 318 (1796), 

 J. E. Smith recognized only B. Luiiaria, with a note that its leaves 

 were rarely bipinnate. But in his Flora Britannica, iii. 1107 

 (1800-1804), Smith accepts the third form of Ray as his own 

 var. y. Then came (1801 and 1806) the definition of Botnjchiuni 

 rutaceum by Swartz, and his inclusion thereunder of Linn^eus's 

 vars. p and y, without, however, naming Eay or any English 

 authority. 



Smith's English Flora, iv. 328 (1828), under Botrychium Lu- 

 naria, makes a var. 5 of Eay's third plant, and gives Swartz's and 

 Willdenow's B. rutaceum as the same. The author adds a note : 

 "5 has pinnatifid leaflets and a more spreading habit," and goes on 

 to say: "All these varieties, and perhaps others, are found oc- 

 casionally intermixed here and there with the plant in its proper 

 or common form ; but never, so far as I could learn, so numerously 

 distinct as to have the appearance of a different species." 



We now come to a period of neglect, dating from the issue of 

 Hooker's British Flora, ed. 1, in 1830. In this Botrychium Lunar ia 

 Sw., without distribution of varieties, is alone given. But the 

 remark is made (p. 451) that forms are found with more than one 

 frond upon a stalk, and with the pinnules laciniated or even pin- 

 natifid. Through all the editions of Hooker to the 5th (1842), and 

 also in Hooker & Arnott (= Hooker, ed. 6, 1850), the exclusion is 

 continued. 



In English Bota^iy, ed. 2, the species or variety is still unnamed, 

 but the new editor (Chas. Johnson) gives (viii. 28) a fuller recog- 

 nition of the range of departure from the type of B. Lunaria. 



In 1844 the London Catalogue was first published. Its first four 

 editions (to 1853) recognize only B. Lunaria Sw. Babington's 

 Manual, eds. 1 (1843) to 3 (1851), gives B. Lunaria Sw. without 

 hint of varieties or of another species. 



In Newman, however, we find an exception to the current dis- 

 regard of the plant. His History of British Feryis was published in 

 1840, and it quotes (p. 102) the three varieties of B. Lunaria as 

 given in Smith's English Flora. In the second edition, p. 347 

 (1844), he identifies the L. min. foliis dissectis of Eay with B. ru- 

 taceum of Swartz, though without actually admitting the latter as 

 a species. Then he describes three specimens obtained by Mr. 

 Cruickshanks in August, 1839, at the Sands of Barry, near Dundee, 

 and reproduces a drawing of one of these made by their discoverer. 

 He did not see the originals. At this time — as his ed. 3 shows — 

 Mr. Newman was not yet acquainted with the continental B. 

 rutaceu7n, and he does not at present commit himself to any 

 identification of the Barry plant. 



Moore's Handbook of British Ferns appeared in 1848. In this 

 (p. 150) B. rutaceum Sw. is made var. fi pinnatifida of B. Lunaria, 

 and the Cruickshanks plant becomes var. y linearis. But in its 

 second edition (1853) no varieties are given, nor any other species 

 than Lunaria (p. 215), and no reference is made to the specimens 

 from Barry. 



Wood's Tourist's Flora (1850) does not recognize B. rutaceum as 



