294 BOTRYCHIUM MATKICARI/EFOLIUM AND B. LANCEOLATUM. 



British, though describing it (p. 426) as continental under the 

 name B. matricarifolium . 



In 1854 Mr. Newman returned to the subject in a long article 

 in the Phi/tolor/ist (v. pp. 129-134). He now figures B. rutaceum^ 

 from a German specimen sent him by Prof. Al. Braun, and un- 

 hesitatingly treats the Cruickshanks plant as a monstrosity thereof. 

 He writes: — "It would seem .... that paucity of individuals 

 was the only inducing cause with Sir J. E. Smith for rejecting 

 B. rutaceum. as a British plant ; but still he retained it as a variety. 

 The learned authors of the 6th ed. of the British Flora, and the very 

 careful author of the Manual, go a step further : they ignore the 

 existence of such a plant." 



This challenge called up Professor Babington, who in a letter to 

 Mr. Newman, as President of the Phytologist Club {Phyt. vol. v. 

 pp. 175-6), referred to the article as follows: — "I am in effect 

 blamed for taking no notice of B. rutaceum as a British plant. The 

 fact is, that I had never either seen or heard of a native specimen 

 until the appearance of that number (of the Phytologist) ; and 

 Messrs. Hooker and Arnott seem to be in the same position. 

 Smith's remark led me to believe that it was only some accidental 



variation that was intended by him In the present state of 



the question I shall not venture to give any opinion." 



Later in the year, ed. 3 of Newman's Ferns was issued, con- 

 taining both the Phytologist drawing of B. rutaceum and the Cruick- 

 shanks figure from ed. 2, and specific value was allowed (pp. 320- 

 323). Babington's Manual, ed. 4, also came out in 1854, with 

 (p. 429) B. rutaceum Sw. doubtfully admitted. Newman's protest 

 in its favour had been partially effectual. 



Moore's Ferns of Great Britain and Ireland, nature-printed, 

 folio, was published 1855-6, edited by Lindley. It gives (letter- 

 press to pi. 51a) var. rutaceum. "The plant referred to rutaceum 

 has been gathered on the sands of Barry." Further on: "It is 



reported to have been found near Buxton in Derbyshire 



Though the B. rutaceum is by no means an unlikely plant to occur 

 in Great Britain, the fact of its occurrence must, as yet, be regarded 

 as doubtful." 



In 1856 Dr. J. H. Kinahan read a paper before the Dublin 

 Natural History Society {Proceedings, vol. i. pp. 25-28) on the 

 varieties of B. Lnnaria. After describing his var. cristatum, he 

 suggests that this form may be " Doody's old plant recorded by 

 Bay. I am inclined to think it is, though a most competent judge 

 on the matter, Edward Newman, has referred this plant of Doody's 

 to the sipecies rutaceum. Swartz . . . ." After discussing the points 

 of Eay's description. Dr. Kinahan repeats that it in his judgment 

 " more closely agrees with B. Lunaria var. cristatum. Kin. than with 

 B. rutaceum.''' He goes on to say : " Again, the plant seems to have 

 occurred amongst the ordinary form, but sufficiently rarely to call 

 for comments, all rather pointing to a variety than to an undoubted 

 species, which, if it had occurred so frequently as Eay's plant 

 appears to have done, ought to have fallen since then under the 

 notice of some of our botanists, and Smith, from his notice, does 



