1859] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 331 



very rare with us in Cambridgeshire. Could you, when they come 

 into flower, without much trouble, get a few specimens of the two 

 latter plants, and send them to me in a little tin box by post 1 If 

 you can, it will be a great kindness done. I am glad that you con- 

 template a " Pocket Flora " of the Isle ; you will do it well, and it 

 will be useful, although it may not pay. I am now getting the 

 materials for my "Cambridge Flora" into order, so as to publish 

 next year. I am tracing each plant to its first authority in print, 

 and find it rather a troublesome business. — Yours very truly, 

 'Charles C. Babington. 



To the same. 



Cambridge, May 10, 1859. 



Dear More, — The box and letter came by same post yesterday, 

 and I have much reason to thank you for so promptly attending to 

 my wishes. I have just been examining the flowers, and fancy that 

 C. semidecandrum has petals without ribs or furrows ; and C. tetran- 

 drum has five rather strong ribs ; but not furrows like those of 

 C. triviale. Why should not you look into these questions 1 I 

 think I sent a copy of my paper about C. pumilum, and if you look 

 •at page 2 of it, you will see what requires to be done. My 

 pumilum in a pot has not yet shewn flower-buds. Suppose that 

 you examine these allied plants, and draw up minute accounts of 

 them — my description in the paper may give some idea of what I 

 mean. I shall keep the Arenaria for Newbould to settle when he 

 returns from Sheffield (where he is gone to vote), as he knows all 

 about Lloyd and Jordan's plants, and I do not. I have just been 

 rather amused by reading Broomfield's account of tetrandrum and 

 .semidecandrum. His tetrandrum may include the true plant, but I 

 think not. Smith best knew the "little tetrandrous plant," which 

 is a state of semideca')idrum. I much suspect indeed, that, until I 

 published atrovirens, English Botanists had almost as completely 

 lost sight of tetrandrum as they had of pumilum. We may thank 

 Smith for much of this neglect. I also think, as you seem to do, 

 that Broomfield had no knowledge of G. pumilum. He might well 

 think that there were not differences between plants, when forms of 

 one species were made to represent three — two being unknown to 

 him although he thought that he had them. — Yours very truly, 

 Charles C. Babington. 



To the same. 



Cambridge, June 7, 1859. 



Dear More, — I ought to have acknowledged your interesting 

 letter long before this time, but have had other things to do, and 

 so neglected it. I have now got the Cerastium pumilum flowering fiom 

 seeds obtained from Torquay plants last year, and grown in a pot. 

 You have shewn successfully that there are ribs on the petals of 

 all our smaller species, and I am much obliged to you for so doing. 



