1846] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 293 



To William Borrer, Esq. 



St. John's College, Cambridge, Jan. 27, 1846. 

 My dear Sir, — It is Lowe who gave the name of foenisecii* to the 

 fern in our "Cambridge Transactions " in 1832. The plant is there 

 fully described, and Bree only gave it as a variety of Aspidium 

 dilatatum in Loudon's Magazine, Vol. iv. Lowe's name as that of a 

 species has therefore a prior claim to that of recurviim given as that 

 of a species first by Newman in the " National Almanack " for 1844, 

 or perhaps Bree's name in the " Phytologist," i. 772, may be of an 

 earlier date. Lowe's name, however, is much sooner. I have no 

 doubt that it is at least one of the plants intended by Smith under 

 the name of dumetorum, as I believe it is the plant that grows in his 

 original station. Smith did not understand the plant, or he would 

 not have placed wrong specimens in his herbarium as dumetorum, 

 and his description is useless. I have not taken the "Rubi out of 

 Dr. Salter's hands." He would not undertake a general revision of 

 them, as he had not the requisite time. I wish he had done it, as 

 he is so very well qualified, and would have done it so well. It is, 

 however, I think, better that I should attempt it, rather than leave 

 it undone. Indeed I am to some extent obliged to do it for my 

 second edition of the Manual. My intention is to publish a series 

 of articles in the "Annals," and to form them into a tract after- 

 wards. As to making them intelligible, I cannot promise that, but 

 will do my best. Salter and I hope to persuade the Ray Society to 

 publish figures of them at some future time, and to undertake it 

 jointly. I saw Sowerby lately, and he shewed me the printed 

 descriptions of Allium Babingtonii, and some other plants. He is 

 delaying until he gets another half-sheet printed, as the description 

 of Leersia only half went into the part printed. He hoped that it 

 would soon be ready. — Yours very truly, Charles C. Babington. 



To Professor J. H. Balfour, M.D. 



St. John's College, Cambridge, March 8, 1846. 

 Dear Balfour, — In the "Gardeners' Chronicle" of yesterday, I 

 see that you stated at the Highland Society's Meeting, that the UJex 

 stridus is a "mere variety, and cannot be raised from seed." I 

 wonder at your venturing upon such a statement, which is opposed 

 to all the evidence that we possess upon the subject. I fully believe 

 that the U. stridus is not a variety, as it has good specific characters ; 

 and it has been raised from seed on more than one occasion, and 

 always, as far as I can learn, has come true to the form and structure 

 of its parent. The objection to it as an agricultural plant is that it 

 seeds so seldom. If it would produce seed I have no fear of its 

 being raised usefully. I have thought it right to let you know the 

 above, as I know that you would wish to be quite correct in your 

 statements, and as I should be glad to have similar corrections my- 

 self. — Believe me, yours very truly, Charles C. Babington. 



* See Manual — "Lastrea aemula." 



