1846] BOTANICAL COERESPONDENCE. 295 



Dr. Graham's Sale. 7 April, 1846. Herbarium. 



Highest price 

 to be given. 

 LOT £ «• <^- 



40. Jamaica ferns 2 



41. Do 10 



42. Mauritius ferns 1 10 



43. Cape ferns 10 



{If the two sets are duplicate, all I want is one of them.) 



58. Ross-shire plants 10 



84. Madeira and Mediterranean specimens 3 15 



85. Arctic plants 2 10 



89. Maltese from E. D. Dickson, with catalogue ... 4 



110. Arctic plants, at £1 5*. the 100, or as near as 



may be 



28 March, 1846. For Charles C. Babington. 



To William Borrek, Esq. 



St. John's Collkge, Cambridge, Mat/ 15, 1846. 



My dear Sir, — It is probable that you are quite correct in sup- 

 posing that Ranunculus Lenormandi will prove a common plant. It 

 is just one to be overlooked until attention has been drawn to it. I 

 place the specific character in the nuts ; other characters may be, 

 and probably are, variable. My friend Newbould writes that he 

 found E. Petiveri (Koch) "in a pond between the Salterns near 

 Birdham and Chichester." He is very accurate, and so cautious, 

 that, although I have not seen the specimens, I think it highly pro- 

 bable that he is correct. I have often looked for it, but could never 

 satisfy myself that I had found it. I have doubts about it being 

 distinct. I have a plant that may perhaps prove E. Eaudotii, from 

 the Channel Islands. I see that Godron ("Flora Lorraine," i. 15) 

 distinguishes E. caespitosus (Thuill.) from E. aqiiatilis. He is a good 

 botanist, and is generally correct, so that his opinion is worthy of 

 attention. His book is an excellent one. I have the idea that his 

 E. caespitos2is is a form of E. Petiveri, without floating leaves. I am 

 glad that you have sent the Eanuncuhis and Carex montana to 

 Sowerby, and am pleased that Dr. Booth will describe the latter, as 

 he will do it well. That Lastrea foenisecii is distinct from the others 

 I have no doubt, and am much pleased with your experiment about 

 the smell of them. I did read Newman's observations, and was 

 much amused to find that I had been so " ingenious " and so " un- 

 successful," as I had been led to suppose by such ignorant people as 

 you and Mr. Forster, that I had been to a great extent successful. 

 Newman's article would admit of an easy answer, but it does not 

 seem to be worth the trouble. His idea of foenisecii being intended 

 to include a group of species is quite without foundation, I believe. 

 Even if it was so, the L. recurva is clearly pointed out by Lowe as 

 the typical plant of his species, and in such cases the rule is clear. 



