224 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



" Mentha exigua, Linn. . . . 



•* Mentha floribus verticillatis, foliis lanceolato-ovatis, glabris 

 acutis integerrimis. Linn. Sj^. PL 806, exchisis syn. Fuchsii, 

 Lobelii ct forte Bail. 



" Ex Anglia Linnseo misit Phil. Miller ; de loco ejus natali 

 nihil in specimine vel Uteris Milleri invenio. In Scotifi, ab 

 Houstono lectam putat Cel. Hudson. . . . 



"Obs. Planta adhuc valde obscura nee cert6 Britannios 

 indigena. Synonyma in Speciebus Plantarum proculdubio erronea 

 sunt. Mentha aquatica exigua Eaii est M. gentilis Linn, secundum 

 Dom. Stokes. Herbarium Buddleanum in Museo Britannico mihi 

 nullam adtulit lucem. Qui cum CI. Hudsono plantam nostram 

 varietatem M. Piilegii esse putabit, vix errabit." 



The figure given by Smith from the Linnean specimen and the 

 specimens themselves agree so closely with Miller's own example 

 in the National Herbarium that w^e may fairly conclude that the 

 two formed part of the same gathering. Miller's description (Diet, 

 ed. 7, 1759) is the first that was printed, although his name exigua 

 dates only from the 8th edition (1768) in which the description is 

 reprinted without alteration. It is, in his own hand, attached to 

 his specimen and runs : — " Mentha (Exigua) floribus verticillatis, 

 foliis ovato dentatis, staminibus corolla longioribus." Miller's de- 

 scription on the ticket is preceded by a note by Houstoun who 

 names the plant "Mentha aquatica exigua, Trag. Lib. i, c. 6 [f. 24] : 

 Calamintha arvensis verticillata, sive aquatica Belgarum Lobelii. 

 Park. 36 " ; but neither of the figures on the pages quoted 

 represents M. Pulegium. Tragus's name is cited by Miller quite 

 definitely for his exigua — " This is the Mentha aquatica, exigua. 

 Trag. Lib. i, c. 6 " : and the sheet which he sent to Linnaeus is 

 endorsed by him with this name, w4iich doubtless suggested the 

 Linnean and Millerian trivial. Hence it w^ould appear that the 

 confusion which has prevailed concerning the plant began with 

 those who first used the name. 



Miller localizes the plant as growing " in watery places in 

 many parts of England." I find nothing in Hudson to confirm 

 Smith's statement that he supposed Houstoun to have collected 

 the plant in Scotland ; but Houstoun's waiting, standing first as 

 it does on Miller's label, suggests that the plant may originally 

 have come from him. 



Smith rightly points out that the synonymy cited by Linnaeus 

 (Sp. PI. ed. 2, 806, and earlier in Centuria II (1756) reprinted in 

 Amoen. Acad. iv. 318 : 1759), does not apply to Miller's specimen, 

 on which the description appears to be based. It is a remarkable 

 illustration of the neglect of Miller's work, even by his contem- 

 poraries, which prevailed until recently, that I have found nowhere 

 any reference to his description of M. exigua, nor indeed has any 

 writer on British plants, so far as I am aware, called attention to it. 

 When the name has been taken up, it has usually been in connec- 

 tion with the Linnean description so far as Pay's plant (cited as a 

 synonym) is concerned : the only exception to this is Hudson 

 (M. Angl. ed. 2, 254 : 1778) who rightly places Linnaeus's descrip- 



