1884] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 403 



C. capitata seems to be only a rayless state of aurantiaca as it is 

 understood universally (?). It has the " flores rubro-aurantiaci " 

 of aurantiacus, but not its radiant florets. C. capitata (Hoppe) is a 

 rayless form of C. pratensis (Hoppe). It is figured in Eeichenb. 

 " Iconographia," fig. 219. I have Reichenbach's specimen of it 

 before me, and it is quite different from your specimen so-named, 

 and from our Welsh plant. Your specimen (except in the colour 

 of the flowers) closely resembles some small Swiss specimens of 

 aurantiacus, received from Shuttleworth. Can yours be a pale form 

 of it, for it is certainly not capitata 1 At the time when spathidi- 

 folius has usually been gathered, either here or on the continent, it 

 has lost its beautiful radical spathulate and arachnoidally-clothed 

 leaves, which are very beautiful indeed on the young spring plants. 

 I have specimens retaining them (more or less) from C. H. Schultz, 

 F. Schultz (Herb, normale 690), Wirtgen (PI. criticae 609). These 

 are all named spathulifolius, and are just like our Holyhead plant, 

 which I have studied carefully in cultivation from seed obtained 

 from roots brought from Holyhead, and flowered here. I quite 

 think that our plant (Welsh) is rightly named. But what is your 

 Yorkshire one ? I have only seen the root that you shewed me at 

 York. Can you send me a root or seeds of it ? or a good dry 

 specimen ? We have had the German plant in cultivation in the 

 Botanic Garden, but fear that it is now dead. I have the Welsh 

 plant alive, and forming a rosette for a third winter, having 

 flowered in two summers, so it is not biennial, as Syme thought. 

 I hope that this will interest you. I will return the specimen very 

 soon. — Yours very truly, CHARLES C. Babington. 



To W. Mathews, Esq. 



Cambridge, Oct. 31, 1884. 



Dear Mathews, — The plant in my garden which came, I fully 

 believe, from Briggs as Calamintha Briggsii, does not now seem to differ 

 from typical officinalis of our books, Thymus Calamintha of Linn, and 

 Smith. I have never had any other Calamintha in cultivation, and 

 this one has sown itself largely, and the seedlings of it (as I fully 

 believe) are C. officinalis a. Certainly I have been in error, for 

 Briggsii is not ascendens, and I cannot find out what the French 

 would call it. I think that my menthifolia = ascendens, but whether 

 it is also menthaefolia I am far from sure. My B. ascendens = 

 Briggsii, and ought to be called so. Jordan's text and figure seem 

 to determine this point. And Boreau says the same. Nyman 

 considers our officinalis to be menthaefolia, but knows nothing of 

 Briggsii. The specimens which you have sent are apparently my 

 typical officinalis called menthifolia in the "Manual." I have the 

 same from the Great Orme's Head, and had named it ascendens (Jord.) 

 and afterwards struck out that name. I now think that I was correct 

 originally. The question now arises, is the plant in my garden 



