376 CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. [1876 



that the Teesdale plant may be the leptoceras, which I see is found 

 as near to us as the Jura, and is therefore not absolutely out of 

 distance for us. The remarkable difference in the rosettes is 

 certainly very worthy of attention, and of course escapes notice 

 in the dry plant. The other characters also are difficult to see in 

 that state. I see that Grenier gives grandiflora in place of lej^toceras 

 as the Jura plant. In his Flora he says nothing of the latter name, 

 which he recognized in the "Fl. de France." This makes matters 

 worse. — Yours very truly, Charles C. Babington. 



To James Backhouse, Esq. 



Cambridge, July 1, 1876. 

 My dear friend, — Your Cystopteris is very near Dickieana. I 

 have placed it beside an original wild specimen from Dr. Dickie, 

 and am not prepared to separate them. But I think that the 

 venation may separate it, and the alpina of Teesdale (from you), 

 and the Low Layton plant, from fragilis (anthriscifolia), and dentata 

 of Smith. Of course the two former can hardly go together. We 

 are told on good authority that the spores of Dickieana are verrucose, 

 and those of all forms of fragilis spinose. Newman states this on 

 the authority of Mr. Wollaston, and Milde ("Filices Europae," 151) 

 says the same ; but he may be only copying Newman. He divides 

 fragilis into two marked series by the form of the tip of the pinnules 

 and the position of the end of the midvein. His book is a valuable 

 one, and of much weight on all such points. I then incline to think 

 that Dickieatm must be distinguished from fragilis, and that you have 

 found it in its true native places on the mountains. What is to be 

 done with your alpina from Teesdale, of which you gave me a scrap 

 in 1871, I am not prepared to say. Certainly it is exceedingly like 

 a bit of alpina from Low Layton, Essex. Is it abundant in Tees- 

 dale ? — Yours very truly, Charles C. Babington. 



To T. R. Archer Briggs, Esq. 



Cambridge, Nov. 20, 1876. 

 My dear Sir, — Trifolium agrarium. There is extreme confusion 

 in the naming of these plants by different authors. I think with 

 Koch and Des Moulins that agrarium =proaimhens of Smith, and has 

 two forms, (a) campestre D.C. and (/3) procunibens D.C, the cam- 

 pestre pseudo procwnbens of Boreau. The differences between 

 them are exceedingly small, scarcely enough in fact to enable 

 Boreau to distinguish them. The Mallow seems to be now 

 naturalized in your district. It is quite clear that Geranium 

 striatum has come from the Gardens. I have written to Mr. 

 Bromwich about Buhus Leesii. I have little doubt about its being 

 the Idaeus-anomalus of Arrh. and it will probably enable us to I'educe 

 Leesii to that species, as I shall be glad to do. — Yours very truly, 

 Charles C. Babington. 



