408 CHARLES OARDALE BABINGTON. [1886. 



lots more in De Candolle and elsewhere. Your B. scaler (" Hedges, 

 Calstock, July 7, 1880") is now before me, and I had placed it, and do, 

 amongst the true specimens of scaler. So, as you say, you have 

 three true plants in your neighbourhood. I have also the plant of 

 " Bank, near Tavistock " before me, and consider it to be Bahingtonii. 

 It is probably also the adornatus (Miiller), — a more recent name 

 (1858). I find very much to do with the Buli, and I think that 

 the new list will rather astonish you and others. I shall have to 

 write a Commentary — indeed am doing so. — Yours very truly, 

 Charles C. Babington. 



To Henry Groves, Esq. 



Cambhidge, uipril 22, 1886. 



Dear Mr. Groves, — I have this day finished the Exchange Club- 

 packet, and return the list bearing my ideas concerning them. Am 

 I to return the specimens ? If not, they will all go into our Herb- 

 arium. I have nothing special to remark more than is written on 

 the paper. There is much difficulty about the two Epilolia. I do 

 not know them well ; indeed, I may say that I cannot determine 

 their true names without (what we scarcely ever receive or find in 

 herbaria) the stoles of any, except certain E. anagallidifolium. 

 I have never seen the true stoles to Scandinavian specimens, of 

 which I have many. They might all be called anagallidifolium, as 

 far as I can see. I cannot see the difference in the seeds mentioned 

 by some authors. I may never have seen the true alpinum seeds. 

 Fries says of them on the authority of Anderson, " Semina E. alpini 

 lanceolata punctata." Godron says of it, " Graines fortement ponc- 

 tu6es . . . . au lieu de stolons filiformes des rosettes sessiles de 

 f. fascicul^es," like those of tetragonum, very different from the 

 filiform elongate leafy stoles of the anagallidifolium. I am inclined 

 to think that we ought to call our plants anagallidifolium, not 

 alpinum, until we can obtain certainly true Scandinavian alpimim 

 from Scotland. I have hunted for more information, but cannot 

 find any. — Yours very truly, Charles C. Babington. 



To the Eev. T. A. Preston. 



Cambridge, June 10, 1886. 



Dear Preston, — I do not wonder at your horror at the new 

 " London Catalogue," but the changes would not have been so great 

 if Watson had not issued Edit. 7, which is equally unsatisfactory in 

 many respects. I do not incline to adopt many of the alterations. 

 I suppose that properly they are according to law, but not quite 

 judicious. The Batrachian Banunculi is by Syme, who stipulated 

 for its adoption on the transfer of the copyright. I need not add 

 that I shall not follow it. Indeed, there are many points in which 



