154 THE VICTORIAN NATURALIST. [Vol. XXIV. 



THE SPECIFIC NAME OF THE INTRODUCED PLANT 

 KNOWN AS ONION WEED. 



By D. M'Alpine. 

 ( Read hef ore the Field Naturalists' Gluh of Victoria, dth Dec, 1907.) 

 In excursions with my students to places of botanical interest in 

 the neighbourhood of Melbourne, we often come across this 

 weed, belonging to the Iridacese, which is generally known by the 

 scientific name of Romulea hulbocodmm, Sebast. and Mauri, as 

 given by the late Baron von Mueller in his " Key to the System 

 of Victorian Plants," and it has been regarded as a native of the 

 Mediterranean region. But this specific name for the Australian 

 importation has been called in question by various botanists in 

 Australia, and at the present time there are at least three different 

 names given to the same plant. 



Mr. E. Betche, of the Sydney Botanic Gardens, examined this 

 plant for Mr. Helms, of the Agricultural Department there, and 

 wrote to him as follows, as recorded in the Agricultural Gazette 

 of New South Wales, p. 232, 1901 : — " I examined the introduced 

 Romulea, and find that it is, as you thought, Romulea rosea, 

 Eckl., from the Cape Colony, and not R. bulbocodium, Seb. and 

 Maur. The chief difference between the species is in the 

 style-branches, which are described and figured as much over- 

 lapping the anthers in R. bulbocodium, and slightly overlapping 

 them in R. r'osea. In the Australian specimens I have seen the 

 style-branches are shorter than the anthers, but I suppose that is 

 variation." 



Quite recently Prof. Ewart, Government Botanist of Victoria, 

 has described it under the name of R. cruciata, Gawl., in the 

 Journal oj Agriculture of Victoria for September, 1907. It can 

 readily be understood that it is very inconvenient, to say the least 

 of it, when a student picks up a plant, for his teacher to give it 

 three specific names, and to have to confess to such glorious 

 uncertainty in systematic botany. 



Accordingly I sent well-chosen specimens of the plant, both in 

 flower and in fruit, to authorities who were in a position to settle, 

 as far as present knowledge goes, the much vexed question of its 

 specific identity. Among others, to the Director of the Royal 

 Gardens, Kew, England, with a request for a thorough examination 

 and the recognized scientific name. I have just received a reply 

 from the Royal Gardens, Kew, dated 31st October, 1907, as 

 follows : — 



" The Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, presents 

 his compliments to D. M'Alpine, Esq., and begs to inform him 

 that the plant received for identification is not Romulea cruciata, 

 Gawl., but R. rosea, Eckl. It is probable, however, that R. rosea 

 is conspecific with the Mediterranean B. bulbocodium, Seb. and 



