1865] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 363 



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



Cambridge, May 2, 1865. 



Dear Balfour, — I return the proof of the Catalogue by this post. 

 I have gone carefully over it, and made a few alterations and 

 additions from my notes. Of course you will do as you please with 

 them ; but equally, of course, I think that they ought to be made, 

 or I should not propose them. I am very glad to see that the 

 alphabetical arrangement is not continued. You know that I 

 always protested against it, and was forced to use the London 

 Catalogue because of it. Thalidrum majus is = Jlexuosum. Eanun- 

 cultis reptans (L.) I consider as a good species, only found in this 

 kingdom at Kinross. Is there any authority for giving Trifolium 

 hybridum as a native or even naturalized plant 1 I fancy not. I 

 should wish to keep Alchemilla conjuncta distinct, for I think it is so. 

 I have not yet considered Rosa. You might follow Syme. I think 

 that the trvs Paronychiaceae are not placed well on p. 19. I should 

 restore them to their old place. I am sorry that you have transposed 

 the Tribes of Compositae. Read Dabeocia from St. Dabeoc, not 

 Daboccia. I have no authority for Plantago Cynops{1), even as 

 naturalized. Corallorrhiza and such like names should have the 

 double rr. Macrorrhiza. Your sub-classes are not quite the same 

 as mine. I doubt if they are better : although they may be. I 

 'have lately commenced lectures. For us I have a good class of 

 about forty. What is that to your 400 1 We have had a most 

 wonderful season here. Spring flowers are come and gone already. 

 Yours truly, Charles C. Babington. 



To the same. 



Cambridge, June 20, 1865. 



Dear Balfour, — I think that the plant is Eriophorum latifolium in 

 a very young state, so as not to be easily determinable. I wish to 

 add that I have more difficulty than ever about the Sagina from 

 Ben Lawers. It is not S. procumhens as I thought. No S. prommbens 

 ■ever had the habit that it has now acquired. But it is divided in 

 fours, and S. nivalis should be in fives, as your other specimens are. 

 <^an there be two plants, and both of them new ? This has very 

 much smaller petals than the true S. nivalis. Should you go to the 

 mountains this year, I hope that you will look carefully into this 

 matter, and introduce living plants of the other kind into our 

 respective gardens. Mudd takes almost as much interest in the 

 plant as I do. He is quite transforming our Garden. It is so much 

 better already as to be hardly like the same place. — Yours truly, 

 Charles C. Babington. 



I leave for Bath for a few days to-morrow, but shall be here 

 most part of July. 



