204 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



meme c6te, a point effilee ; fleurs jaunes ; fenilles radioales lyrees, 

 a lobe principal ovale oblong, les deux lobes qui le souvent kjalant 

 la moitic de sa largcur ; lobe principal des feuilles superieures 

 obovale, comme tronque, ijrofondeincnt ct irregulierement sinue 

 dente." 



This seems to me nothing more than the plant which Fries 

 had previously described as B. vulgaris var. sylvestris. I have fre- 

 quently seen both English and Continental specimens of it labelled 

 B. stricta Andrzj. which however is a perfectly distinct species 

 easily separable from all forms of B. vulgaris by its shorter styles, 

 hairy flower buds, and other well-marked characters.* 



The plant which Boreau describes as B. stricta, which according 

 to Eouy and Foucaud does not occur in France, is apparently from 

 the description, B. vulgaris var. sylvestris. Boreau says : " Tr^s 

 resemblante a la precedente [B. vulgaris'] mais plus grele, lobes 

 lateraux des feuilles cordi forme, oblong ovale, feuilles inter- 

 mediaires lyrees incisees a la base, les superieures obovales sinuees 

 dentees : fleurs jaunes, plus petites, siliqu^s subulees, serrees 

 contre I'axe." This I think leaves no doubt as to the plant 

 intended. 



Another form of B. vulgaris which has misled more than one 

 botanist,! is var. transiens Druce (Fl. Berks. 44, 1897) : this has the 

 upper stem leaves more divided with linear lateral lobes, some- 

 what resembling those of B. intermedia Bor. with which it has 

 been confused. 



Turning now to British authors, Babington in the first edition 

 of his Manual, p. 19 (1843), keeps up B. arcuata as a species 

 distinct from B. vulgaris, recording it from Llangollen, N. Wales, on 

 Mr. Borrer's authority.]; He distinguishes it by its lax flowering 

 raceme and small oblong seeds, the latter being described as 

 scarcely half the size of those of B. vulgaris, and with a truly 

 accumbent radicle, whereas in B. vulgaris the radicle is said to be 

 pushed from its place so as to be nearly on the back of one of the 

 cotyledons. In the second and two subsequent editions we find a 

 difference of treatment, B. arcuata being reduced to a variety of 

 B. vulgaris with the description " young pods patent upon nearly 

 horizontal pedicels." In the fifth edition (1862) B. arcitata is not 

 mentioned, but the pods of B. vulgaris are described as adpressed, 

 obliquely erect, or patent : this was evidently meant to include 

 B. arcuata. In the sixth and succeeding editions Babington says 

 that he cannot separate B. arcuata from B. vulgans. In the 

 Student's Flora (1870) Sir J. D. Hooker treats B. arcuata as a 

 subspecies of B. vulgaris, with the following description : "Eaceme 

 elongate, petals rather more than twice the length of the sepals, 

 pods in a lax raceme, arched and spreading when young, 5-8 times 

 as long as their pedicels ; seed more than twice as long as broad. 

 In the second edition of the Flora, B. arcuata is reduced to a 



* See note by J. G. Baker in Phyt. n.s. i, 327 (1856). 

 t See Wilis. Exch. Club liep. 190l)-10, p. 219, and 1912-13, p. 377. 

 X I have seen a specimen from this locality in Borrer's herbarium at Kew : 

 it is typical B. arcuata. 



