1860] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 347 



to make out to be L. medium are L. neglectum. I have the true 

 L. medium of Fries, and have not seen English specimens resembling it. 

 It does not ^according to Kindberg) occur in France. Arenaria marina 

 (Roth) is said by Kindberg to be L. neglectum, as certainly the plant 

 ;S0 called by Reichenbach is. Spergularia media /3 marginata I suppose 

 to be true L. marinum. I see that Kindberg places the S. media or 

 heter&phylla to L. salinum. It seems probable that we may have this, 

 as its distribution seems favourable to us. I have authentic 

 specimens from Scandinavia, and have no British that resemble 

 them : except that they considerably resemble neglectum, and indeed 

 hardly differ in anything but having the seeds smoother, for I cannot 

 say that they are quite smooth in the Scandinavian specimens, and 

 also the winged seeds are hardly more abundant than they are in 

 neglectum. I wish that the sections were better defined in the 

 ■Symh. Lepigonorum. — Yours truly, Charles C. Babington. 



To the same. 



Cambridge, Oct. 15, 1860. 



Dear More, — When the parcel arrives I shall examine the plants 

 with care and inform you of the result. It will give me pleasure to 

 •do so. I am glad to tell you that I have Lappish specimens of 

 Fotamogeton sparganiifolius from Fries, and that they are exactly the 

 same as the plant from Ma'am, Galway. I have never been able to 

 find a satisfactory distinction between Festuca elatior and arundinacea. 

 Nevertheless there does seem a difference in the growing plants. 

 Nor could I ever learn from Watson the foundation of his opinion 

 -concerning them. The Atriplex Bahingtonii came up true from seeds 

 in our Botanic Garden for one year, but never appeared again, nor 

 anything in its place. I feel sure that it will come true, but please 

 to try. States of it and of hastata are often mistaken for each other. 

 Atriplezes on fat land are amongst the most undeterminable of plants. 

 If you expect to convince Bentham that hastata and Bahingtonii are 

 distinct, I feel sure that you will be disappointed. I am much 

 obliged to you for the corrections in the "Flora of Cambridge." 

 Cardamine sylvatica is omitted. Epipactis latifolia is doubtful. There 

 is a sad omission of Silene Otites, which is tolerably abundant at 

 Chippenham in my District 5. I may add that the Fumaria capreolata 

 of Elm is F. muralis. Also that Lepigonum medium is L. neglectum. 

 Your plants shall be carefully returned. Do you want Rubus 

 pyramidalis or incurvatus, or Arctium tomentosum 1 I believe that I 

 can send them to you. I spent a month in North Wales, but did 

 next to nothing in botany. I am pleased with the notice of the 

 "Flora of Cambridge " in the "A. N. H.," but should have liked its 

 historical character to be a little more prominently noticed. Perhaps, 

 however, that point strikes me more than it does others. I am sorry 

 to hear of your bad health. — Yours truly, Charles C. Babington. 



