BOTRYCHIUM MATRICARIA FOLIUM AND B. LANCEOLATUM. 295 



not appear to me to have met the plant, as, had he met only the 

 perfect form of this variety, it is too remarkable to have been passed 

 over without description ; and had he met the intermediate forms, 

 he would certainly have mentioned so strong a proof as they would 

 have afforded of the specific identity of the two forms. I know that 

 these latter objections may also be urged against var. cristatum; but 

 still that Eay actually saw or knew of Doody's plant is unmistakable, 

 and it seems more likely to have been merely a variety of plant 

 known to exist in England in quantity, than a plant of whose 

 occurrence we have no proof, if we except Mr. Cruickshanks' 

 specimen of monstrous growth from Dundee, and these are too 

 much deformed to enable us to form an opinion with any degree of 

 certainty. These arguments are not for one moment to be supposed 

 to be directed against the existence of B, rutaceum as a species, but 

 merely to prove that Doody's plants and these now exhibited [^. e. 

 var. cristatum Kin.] were probably the same." 



The London Catalogue, ed. 5 (1857), mentions the species for the 

 first time, but only among excluded plants — evidently as " not 

 distinctly ascertained in Britain." Hooker & Arnott's ed. 8, 

 p. 596 (1860), accepts it, but with the reservation — " We have not 



ourselves seen British specimens It is probable that Smith 



was correct in referring it to B. Lunaria, none of the varieties he 

 mentions being ' so 7iumeroushj distinct as to have the appearance 

 of a different species': an observation that applies well to this one, 

 only three specimens having been found on the Sands of Barrie, 

 and none elsewhere since the days of Ray." 



In Hooker's Stiidenfs Flora, p. 469 (1870), the plant is placed 

 under B. Lunaria Sw. as "var. rutaceum: Sands of Barry." 



Moore's Octavo Nature-jjrinted British Ferns appeared in 1860. 

 It includes (ii. 324-333) rutaceum as a var. of B. Lunaria, equivalent 

 to Smith's var. 5, Swartz's rutaceum in part, Willdenow's riitaceum, 

 and A. Braun's matricaricEfolium; with an admission that it "is 

 perhaps entitled to specific rank." .... "We have not seen a 

 native specimen, but that from Dundee figured by Mr. Newman 

 tolerably well agrees with the European jB. rjiirtc^ziw." .... "Dr. 

 Milde, who has paid much attention to the species of this genus, 

 identifies it with B. rutaceum of Willdenow . . . excluding in part 

 the rutaceum of Swartz. Dr. Milde's own illustrations of B. lanceo- 

 latum are most nearly accordant with the figure of the Dundee 

 plant, which should probably bear the name of var. lanceohtum 

 instead of rutaceum, hitherto applied to it." 



Under var. 2, tripartituyn (= var. cristatum Kin.), Mr. Moore 

 says that Dr. Kinahan " suggests the possibility of this, instead 

 of rutaceum, being the Lunaria minor foliis dissectis of Ray, but we 

 should rather identify our next variety with Ray's plant." That 

 next variety is 3. incisum, Milde. 



Dr. Boswell, in English Bota^nj, ed. 3, vol. xii. pp. 27-29 (1877), 

 approves of Moore's views with regard to both Ray's and Cruick- 

 shanks' plants. He places rutaceum Sw. under "excluded," though 

 saying that Smith's var. § is probably that form. B. lanceolatum is 

 also ranked as excluded, with a similar reservation. " I do not 



