378 CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. [1877 



would publish these new things which he names, that we might 

 have his own ideas of their characters. I should much like to know 

 how he distinguishes Purchasii from tuherculatus, for I cannot. — Yours 

 very truly, Charles C. Babington. 



To J. T. T. Boswell-Syme, Esq. 



Cambridge, April 13, 1877. 



Dear Boswell, — I do not see how to separate the Atriplex rosea 

 from West Sussex and Cornwall from the A. laciniata of Smith, It 

 is certainly not my A. rosea, nor anything like it. I think that you 

 may safely call Woods' arenaria and Smith's laciniata = A. farinosa 

 (Dum.). The dates are : 



A. farinosa (Dum.). " Prod. Fl. Belg." 20 (1827) " Bull. Soc. Bot. 

 Belg." vii. 323. 



^. aremria (Woods). "Tourist's Flora." 317 (1815). 

 I have been looking carefully at the specimens in question, and 

 also at the British and continental specimens which I have, and 

 certainly see no cause to doubt their being farinosa. They are not 

 the laciniata of Koch, and certainly they have nothing to do with 

 my rosea, nor the continental plant so named. Certainly I do give 

 Dumortier's name to the "totally distinct" A. arenaria (Woods), 

 which so far from being totally distinct I believe to be identical. 

 I feel quite sure that our English laciniata is the farinosa, and why 

 these specimens with their diffuse stems and nearly smooth calyxes 

 are called rosea I cannot understand. What do you call these Cornish 

 and Sussex specimens ? I think that the Arctium from Balmuto is 

 minus, but diiferent from that from Hoy. I find two specimens in 

 my collection from you in 1873 (Balmuto) sent as minus, which I 

 call nemorosum. I may have told you that I considered them to be 

 minus, as I had not altered the name, although I had placed them 

 with nemorosum. I think therefore that you have both minus and 

 nemorosum at Balmuto. Many thanks for the information about Rubus 

 saxatilis. I was giving up the Supplement to Syme's "English 

 Botany," and am very glad to learn it is going on. — Yours very truly, 

 Charles C. Babington. 



To Alfred Fryer, Esq. 



5, Brookside, Cambridge, May 9, 1877. 



My dear Sir, — Stalked primroses are not very uncommon. It 

 is only that the common peduncle, which always exists, although 

 very short, has grown up. There is no hybridity here, nor is it in 

 any way to be confounded with P. elatior. It seems very much as 

 if you had found Carez strigosa. Please to look for the plant later, 

 when the fruits are developed, and then let me see it. In this early 

 stage it is very difficult to determine. We always want the well- 

 advanced fruit, to be quite sure of a rather difficult Carex. Myosurus 

 growing nicely in a pan. — Yours very truly, Charles C. Babington. 



