AN OVEELOOKED BEITISH MINT 225 



tion under M. Pulegium as a variety {exigua), and refers Bay's 

 plant with its synonymy to M. gentilis, where Linnseus himself had 

 placed the figm^e of Fuchs which he also quotes for ill. exigua. It 

 may be well for those who have not ready access to the book to 

 quote the description from Sp. PL ed. 2, 806 (1763) : 



"exigua. 10. Mentha floribus verticillatis, foHis lanceolato- 

 ovatis glabri sacutisintegerrimis. A7ncen.acadA,^.SlS. 

 Mentha aquatica exigua. Baj. angl. 3, p. 332, 

 Mentha hortensis 4. Fuchs. hist. 291. 

 Calamintha aquatica belgarum & matthioH, Loh. 



ic. 505. 

 Habitat in Angha. Miller." 

 Stokes (in With. Arr. ed. 2, ii, 602) writes of " the figures 

 referred by Linnaeus to his M. exigua" : " that of Lob. ic. 505 is 

 M. arvensis, and Fuchs 291 is also referred by Linnaeus himself to 

 his M. gentilis. But Linnaeus does not give any reason to suppose 

 that his plant had any peculiar affinity with M. Pulegium, and 

 Eay's plant is Mr. Hudson's M. gentilis (3. The present I can only 

 conjecture to [be] ail/. Pulegium with narrower leaves than usual." 

 It must be remembered that even Stokes makes no reference 

 whatever to Miller's description, nor did he see Linnaeus' s specimen 

 on which the description in Sp. PI. is based. Hudson, to whom he 

 refers, placed the above-quoted synonymy, as well as the reference 

 to Tragus already cited — in this case according to Stokes (/. c. 501) 

 incorrectly— under his M. gentilis ^. Martyn, in his edition of 

 Miller (1807) makes no reference to M. exigua. 



Miller's plant, although hardly presenting sufficient characters 

 to stand as a variety, differs greatly in appearance from ordinary 

 Pulcginm — so much so, indeed, that the usually accurate Dryander 

 had named it Cunila (Hedeoma) pulegioides, under which name it 

 had lain i^erdu in the Herbarium. I am indebted to Mr. Wilmott 

 for examining the flowers, wdiich show conclusively that the 

 specimen is correctly referred to M. Pulegium. If retained as a 

 variety, it will stand as 



Mentha Pulegium L. /3. exigua Huds. Fl. Angl. ed. 2, 254 (1778). 



M. exigua L. Herb. ! Sp. PI ed. 2, 806, excl. syn. (1763) 



Mill. Diet. no. 14 (1768). 



It may be noted here that if the stout erect form of M. Pulegium 



which Syme (E. Bot. ed. 3, vii, 24) names " var. (i. erecta" be 



maintained as a variety, the authority for the name is of much 



earlier date. Miller, who maintained Pulegium as a genus — thus 



anticipating Opitz, to whom it is often referred — described this as 



P. erectum : Martyn reduced it to a variety of M. Pulegium. The 



name wall stand as 



Mentha Pulegium L. var. erecta Mart. Mill. Diet, iv (1807) ; 

 Syme, E. Bot. ed. 3, vii, 24 (1867). 

 Pulegium erectum Mill. Gard. Diet. ed. 8, n. 2 (1768). 

 Syme cites for his variety a specimen collected by Isaac Carroll 

 in Great Island, Cork ; we have the plant from this locality (1850) 

 from Carroll's herbarium, which w^as acquired by the Department 

 in 1874, 



