I860] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 349 



you seen Woods' paper in Linnaean Transactions, Vol. xvii. ? I 

 shall send back the specimens in a day or two, exclusive of the 

 L. negleckm. — Yours truly, Charles C. Babington. 



To the same. 



Cambridge, Dec. 17, 1860. 



Dear More, — I have no doubt that the summer of 1861 will set 

 you all right about the batrachian Ranunculus. I have next to no 

 doubt about the Lepigonum salinum being correct : surely the salt- 

 spring country is a likely place for it without supposing that it has 

 been brought from the coast. Are there not several other saline 

 plants thereabouts ? Kindberg says of it "in locis salsis," and does not 

 add (as in L. marinum) "praecipue marinis." I did keep one branch 

 of the specimen, which was detached when it came to me. I sup- 

 posed from your letter that you had not received any more of it. 

 I shall be thankful for a better piece at some future time. I am 

 much amused with your very great desire to find L. medium. I 

 suspect that we should look towards the north for it, and not at 

 all necessarily to the coast. I consider that the remarks in the 

 " Mantissa " ill. are superseded by Kindberg's essay, which I believe 

 fully that Fries adopts. He does not seem to have attended to the 

 rough or smooth seeds at that time ; and indeed, are they altogether 

 trustworthy 1 Think of the seeds of Spergula ! How they vary. 

 I am sorry to say that I have not a very high opinion of your paper, 

 nor do I quite see the use of just now publishing it. Excuse my 

 asking if you are not sometimes in quite sufficiently great a hurry 

 to print these things. I have had sufficient materials (except in the 

 case of L. salinum) in hand for some months to have written a much 

 more elaborate paper upon the genus ; but I have and do refrain. 

 I always like keeping things a good while ; not nine years, as recom- 

 mended by Horace for poetry, but often for twice as many months. 

 I have often found the benefit, and if any one steps in and does the 

 work in the meantime, I am rather pleased than otherwise. Now 

 do excuse me. I have much doubt of the distinctness of Valerianella 

 eriocarpa. Have they a set of the Linnaean Transactions at 

 Ryde ? if they have one, you should look at Woods' valuable paper 

 upon Fedia, in Vol. xvii. I send by this day's post my copy of the 

 7th edition of Arnott, to your address. Return it when done with. 

 I am glad that you have taken the 8th edition in hand, and will 

 willingly read over and remark upon the MS. as you seem to wish 

 me to do so. I am in no special hurry for the return of the book. 

 I fancy that they will have no objection whatever to be " convicted 

 of Benthamianism." It is their natural tendency. For instance 

 under Isoetes, see the remark that there may be only one species in 

 the genus, and yet they must have /. hystrix, and probably Duriei 

 in the herbaria at Kew and at G-lasgow. In fact, they cannot have 



