374 CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. [1876 



To T. R Archer Briggs, Esq. 



5, Bbookside, Cambbidoe, Feb. 19, 1876. 



My dear Sir, — I do think that the accidental plant is Atriplex 



rosea, and I do not think that is much to blame for 



naming it Chenopodium glaucum. If I am to determine Rvhi I 

 hope that the specimens will be reasonably good and perfect. I 

 think the club should see to this, and reject all bad specimens of 

 Ruhi, as they convey no information to those not well acquainted 

 with the plants, even if they do so to any person whatever. I often 

 have to throw away many specimens that come to me, as quite 

 useless for study. As to a parcel for me, I have only to say that I 

 wish for any critical plants that may come to hand, or plants from 

 quite new places, or naturalized plants especially. It is quite 

 possible that your Senecio may be the v. radiatus of Koch, which I 

 now think is not my plant of Nov. Fl. Sar. 53. I have looked at 

 Nolte 71, who himself gives it up, as also does Fries. Y'ou will see 

 in "D.C. Prod." vi. 343 that he places denticulatus (Miill.) under 

 lividus, and says "Habitus S. vulgaris — Ex Miill. invol. squamae 

 intactae et ligulae revolutae ; ex Reichenbach, et spec. Wallr. invol. 

 squamae distincte sphacelatae et ligulae patentes." Drejer says 

 that the denticulatus of Fl. Dan. is made up of a form of S. vulgaris, 

 and one of S. sylvaticus. We must therefore carefully avoid that 

 name. I do not think these plants of very much scientific interest, 

 as the ray is there I think at all times, and is only longer or 

 shorter. — Yours truly, Charles C. Babington. 



To James Backhouse, Esq., York. 



Cambridge, March 21, 1876. 



My dear friend, — I am now almost certain that your plant is 

 that of W. Wilson, and have always believed that he got his at 

 about the spot pointed out by you. It is a very remarkable plant, 

 and well deserving of more attention than it has ever received. 

 My knowledge of it has been nothing, until my recent discovery of 

 Wilson's specimens in Henslow's collection, and they are not good. 

 That which you sent to me to look at is far more distinct in look 

 from the Cineraria campestris than they are — being in far finer 

 condition. Smith was inclined to separate them, but for the 

 variable character of their allies. I do not know what to say to it ; 

 but we want much more abundant materials from which to form a 

 sound opinion. How complete a return of winter we have had of 

 late. I fear for the fruit, as some of the trees have opened their 

 flowers and of course suffered. — Yours very truly, Charles C. 

 Babington. 



