1853] BOTANICAL COllRESPONDENCE. 321 



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



St. John's College, Cambridge, Feb. 22, 1853. 



Dear Balfour, — Please to look in the Bot. Society's Herbarium 

 and see if there is any Hypericum Androsaemum from Isle of Arran, 

 Buteshire ; or without the latter word, and perhaps from the Irish 

 Isles of Aran. I strongly suspect from the way in which the station 

 is given, that it is a Botanical Society specimen, to which Reichen- 

 bach refers ("Icon. Fl. Grerm." vi., p. 70) as the H. grandiflorum, or 

 as Bertolini calls it, H. anglicwn. Look also at "English Botany," 

 122 — 5, and tell me what you think of it when contrasted with your 

 Irish Hypericum. What is your opinion about the indigenous 

 character of the Glanmire plant, and did you see it in other places ? 

 Had it the smell of H. hircinum ? and do you think that it can be a 

 variety of that species 1 I send a new manuscript to take the place 

 of the part headed Hypericum in that formerly sent. Will you 

 ■consider the subject of it (and the other parts of these papers), and 

 give me your opinion upon anything that may strike you — or, 

 append a note to go with my paper 1 I have carefully examined 

 your plants, and put a mark with a pencil upon the papers of those 

 that will be returned. Also I enclose notes upon the Irish specimens 

 kindly given to me. — Yours very truly, Charles C. Babington. 



Of course my paper may be read in as many parts as you please. 



To William Borrer, Esq. 



St. John's College, Cambridge, June 6, 1853. 

 My dear Sir, — The specimens are very acceptable, and still more 

 the letter ; for I had taken it into my head that you were ill, and 

 am rejoiced to learn, under your own hand, that such is not the case. 

 The specimen of Eanunculus tripartitus with dividing leaves is highly 

 satisfactory, as shewing that plant's capability of providing "sub- 

 mersed " leaves with us as well as in France. I am much obliged for 

 the specimen of Chara prolifera.* Newbould found it between Creeke 

 and Burnham, Norfolk, in 1851, but neglected to preserve many 

 bits. I enclose a bit of C. polysperma,j but am sorry to say that 

 I have none (duplicate) of C. crinita. Your account of the prospect 

 of the " E. B. S." is very unsatisfactory, although not different 

 from what I had expected. If a work does not pay its expenses, 

 we cannot hope for its continuance. It is wonderful that that 

 work should not do so. I am not inclined to separate the English 

 Ban. Drouetii from R. trichophyllus, and Newbould I think has 

 come to the same conclusion. The name of pantothrix given by 

 De Candolle was intended to include a great number of diiferent 

 things, and applies, I believe, more especially to the true R. aquatilis, 

 when flowering without any floating leaves, as is often the case. 

 Bertolini's description appears more applicable to that than to our 

 trichophyllus. There is some error concerning the furrowed fruit- 

 stalk I suppose. The globular receptacle will perhaps distinguish 



* Now Nitella pr. f Tolypella intricata (Leonh.) 



21 



