147 
and misapplied it to a very poor drawing of a supposed 
Aquilegia borrowed, without acknowledgment, from tab. 8 in 
the Pugillus of Christian Mentzel (Berlin 1682), which could 
second Mantissa (1771) p. 408 he observed that in /sopyrum 
thalictroides there are only three ‘‘ germens,”’ citing Scopoli, 
Flora Carniolica, ed. i. p. 555 (1760); he omitted, however, 
Scopoli’s further observation that the carpels are one-seeded. 
Murray and Willdenow, accordingly, in turn reproduced the 
erroneous definition as regards the number of the ovules. Crantz 
(Stirp. Austr. fase. ii. p. 125, ed. 1763) criticised Linné’s account 
of Isopyrum, with reference, more especially, to the description 
of the petals (‘‘ nectaries’’). Gaertner (1788) treated 2. fwmar- 
ioides as the type of Zsopyrum (De Fructibus 1. 312 tab. 65 f. 5); 
and this view has found support from Torrey and Gray (Flora of 
North America i. Suppl. 6 
seems preferable to regard the s Isopyrum as subsisting on 
the authority of Spach following Reiche . This constitutes 
1. thalictroides, Linn. Sp. Pl. i. 557 (1753) the type of Jsopyrum, 
39) vil. p. 326. 
Bentham and Hooker in Genera Plantarum vol. i. p. 8 (1862) 
amended the description of the genus with respect to the number 
of the ovules. They estimated the content of Zsopyrum at seven 
species, and in the Index Kewensis to date there are thirty-two 
valid specific names. 
preserved in the Sloane Herbarium, at the Natural History 
Museum. Plukenet’s type is on p. 151 of vol. xciv.; duplicates on 
pages 83 and 100 of vol. xx.; all three correspond quite clearly 
+o the Amaltheum illustration and De Candolle’s description. 
This species has a varying number of the inner row of stamens 
‘converted into scales or staminodes, a condition which is charac- 
teristic of the genus Aquilegia, but has not been observed in 
pe Sk cg oe Sea eae nee ee EI 
* Previously in Conspectus Regni Vegetabilis, No. 4954 (Leipzig 1828) but 
without note or description :—also Icones Florae Germanicae iii. 26 t. cxii. 
fic, 4728 & 4728 (b), publ. 1840. In the Dictionnaire Classique vol. ix. p. 34 
(1826) A. Richard had originally pointed out the propriety of dividing the 
Linnean genus, but he assi sopyrum to I. , and pro) a 
new genus, Thalictrella, for I. thaliciroides :-—in 1830 (vol. xvi. p. 204) he 
cancelled Thalictrella. — 
