1857] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 329' 



at your growing plants of them. This is the first news that I have 

 received of the Gladiolus. Will you be so kind as to send me a note 

 concerning it, and I will have it put into the " Annals." I see that 

 Godron (v. 3, p. 247) joins G. imhicatus with G. pahtstris of Gaudin.. 

 Or rather the true G. imhicatus is not found in France, although it 

 seems to be German. Have you examined the new plant compara- 

 tively with the former 1 Do you think that the finder could be 

 persuaded to send a specimen to me ? Sturm figures the stigmas of 

 G. imbricatus [something in this way, i.e.] very much enlarged at the- 

 end. I am sorry that I have neglected to send the batrachian 

 Ranunculi to you, but will send them in a few days, when I can. 

 place my hands upon some good specimens. The Shirehampton 

 plant I presume is Baudotii. I find in this county {!) heterophylhts,. 

 (2) trichophyllus, (3) JDrouetii, and (i) Jtoribundtis, but have seen no 

 trace of the others. The fine green of Drouetii points it out from 

 trichophyllus at a glance, when both have become moderately familiar 

 to the eye. I can send living plants of (2), (3), (4), and peUatus 

 and confusus, I believe, if you would like to have them. PeUatus has 

 lately been most beautiful in the Botanic Garden, grown in a broad 

 flat pan about three inches deep, with earth at the bottom and water 

 above it. The top of the pan was covered with a sheet of large 

 white flowers. Stratton does not, I believe, want the plants at this 

 season, and that is his reason for not sending a list in accordance 

 with your kind wish. Please to remember me most kindly to Mrs. 

 Borrer, etc., and believe me to be, most truly yours, Charles C. 

 Babington, 



To the same. 



Cambridge, July 16, 1857. 



My dear Sir, — It is indeed kind of you to send the spike of 

 Gladiolus for me to look at. I shall venture to keep it for some 

 little time, and will then return it to you — safely I hope. The 

 name which it ought to bear has puzzled me greatly. At first I 

 thought that it could not be imhicatus, and might be palustris, but 

 now I doubt very greatly concerning it. The lower lateral petals 

 seem to be very blunt in your plant, and decidedly shorter than the 

 rather acute (certainly pointed) lowest petal — this is nearer to the 

 structure of imhicatus than palustris. The stigmas more resemble 

 those of imbricatus. I want to know the character of the coating of the 

 root {see Woods' " Tour, Fl." 358) and the mode in which the buds are 

 arranged in the young spike {see Reich, figure table, 351, right-hand 

 side). All the buds, except the uppermost, are hidden by the upper 

 leaf (?) and lowest bract. Sturm figures this structure better, and 

 contrasts with it the state in imhicatus and communis, where there is 

 no such concealment of the buds. The capsule also is in favour of 

 imbricatus. I shall delay sending any notice for publication until I 

 learn from you if you can decide the above points, and have settled 

 the same to your own satisfaction. It was kind of you to remember 



