296 BOTRYCHIUM MATRICARI^FOLIUM AND B. LANCEOLATUM. 



think there can be any doubt that Mr. Newman's figure here 



referred to represents B. lanceolatum and not B. rutaceum 



Unfortunately no further information can be obtained about the 

 plant from the Sands of Barry, nor can any of Mr. Cruickshanks' 

 three specimens be traced to their present owners, so far as I can 

 discover. No one else has found it there, still B. lanceolatum. seems 

 to have a better claim to be included in the British lists than 

 B. rutaceum.'' 



Another change of treatment was thus induced. In the 

 Student's Flora, ed. 3, p. 521 (1884), the distinct recognition 

 of rutaceum of ed. 1 was suppressed, and only the reference sub- 

 stituted — "A form .... found on the Sands of Barry, has been 

 doubtfully referred to B. rutaceum Sw." Mr. Britten (European 

 Ferns, p. 187 (1881-2)) says of the plant, adopting the specific 

 name matricaria folium A. Br.: "Has been reported as a British 

 plant, but its occurrence requires confirmation." The next issue of 

 the London Catalogue (ed. 8, 1886) contains incisum. Milde for the 

 first time, as a var. of B. Lunaria Sw., and B. lanceolatiun Angst, is 

 introduced (as a species) with a ?. Then, in ed. 9 (1895), the latest, 

 lanceolatum is omitted. 



Babington, however, retained var. rutaceum (Sw.) to his last 

 edition (8, p. 464 : 1881), and withdrew all indications of doubt 

 respecting it. His references are to Newman, Ferns, ed. 3, and 

 Milde, Fil. Europ. 195. 



Upon the question whether Cruickshanks' drawing in Newman 

 represents, as that author supposed, an aberrant form of B. rutaceum 

 Sw., or, in accordance with Moore's and Boswell's opinion, true 

 B. lanceolatum Angstrom, I may observe that on carefully comparing 

 the figure with the Kew and Brit. Mus. specimens under both 

 names, I am convinced that the latter view is correct. There is a 

 plant at Kew, evidently one of the best in the lanceolatum series, 

 which might easily be supposed the original of the Cruickshanks 

 drawing. Then the reinstallation of B. rutaceum on the strength of 

 the Barry plant becomes erroneous. 



What of its inclusion on the faith of the identity of Bay's third 

 form with the Swartzian species ? I have not been able as yet to 

 examine this problem to my satisfaction. There is a specimen of 

 Ray's in the Brit. Mus., but that is only the common form of 

 Moonwort. In Sir J. E. Smith's collection there is nothing of 

 which the same may not be said. It is not known that any British 

 representative of Piay's form, Smith's variety, or the Swartz species 

 is anywhere preserved. The Barry specimens have themselves dis- 

 appeared : indeed, they do not appear to have been seen by anyone 

 except their discoverer. Then, if Moore's and Boswell's view is 

 correct, that the old descriptions represent nothing more than the 

 var. incisum of Milde, the present specimen is left in sole but 

 unquestionable possession of the field, as witness to the presence of 

 B. matricaricefolium in Britain. It will be placed in the British 

 collection in the National Herbarium. 



I submit that good grounds have now been shown for the 

 inclusion, henceforth, of matricarm/olium and lanceolatum in our 



