1886] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 409 



Nyman has been followed where it might have been as well not to 

 have done so. But on the whole I consider it as an improvement 

 on preceding editions. What you say is not worse than the outcry 

 against me when the early editions of the " Manual " appeared. I 

 have always objected to hunting up old obscure tracts and univer- 

 sally neglected names and thrusting them forward. Possibly my 

 Ilubi is a great horror to you. I have taken all the pains in my 

 power with it, and am about to publish (" Journ. of Bot.") a long 

 paper on them. — Yours very truly, Charles C. Babington, 



To Frederick J. Hanbury, Esq., Plough Court, 37, Lombard 

 Street, London, B.C. 



Cambridge, Oct. 20, 1886. 



Dear Mr. Hanbury, — I am glad to see Backhouse's letter, and to 

 learn from it, and from your own, that you contemplate a book upon 

 Hieracia. I think that before publication you will have to come here 

 and see the collections which we have in our Herbarium, Friesian 

 and other of Scandinavia. I shall be very glad to help in any way 

 that I can. But Backhouse, as being a specialist, is far more able to 

 give valuable help. I usually look to him in cases of difficulty. 

 Your book will be a most valuable addition to our literature on this 

 difficult subject. I am very sorry to find that Backhouse has still 

 to speak of his weak health. His help in your undertaking would 

 be invaluable. He has had most of the plants (both ours and Fries') 

 in cultivation, although I fear that he has lost very many of them. 

 We once had a good set growing, but they are not now existing. 

 They are most troublesome plants to cultivate — the weak ones die 

 out, and the seeds of others vegetate in their places. I certainly 

 helped my dear friend in his "Monograph," but he makes far too 

 much of it. Many thanks for the specimen of the supposed Ceras- 

 tmm arcticum. I have something very like yours gathered by myself 

 in the Corrie of Ben Nevis (I fancy near the snow) on Aug. 9, 1845, 

 and also in Croall's "Plants of Braemar," No. 510, from Ben Muich 

 Dhui in July, 1856. They were both originally named latifolium, 

 but I had changed the name to alpinum. I have also a specimen 

 from the Exchange Club (1876) " C. latifolium (Sm.) v. compadum, 

 Creag-na-dal-beg, Braemar, July 14, 1876, Augustin Ley," of which 

 Boswell says, Eeport p. 11, "A very characteristic specimen of this 

 variety." It seems to be arcticum. Its seeds resemble those of 

 Lange's figure "Fl. Dan." MM.D.CCCC.LXIII. I have also one from 

 Spitzbergen "Wide Bay (4th station) August, 1873, Rev. A. E. 

 Eaton." I will now copy what Lange says in the "F. D.": " humile 

 (1 — 2" longum) dense caespitosum, fol. ovali-obovato-subrotundis, 

 inferioribus glabratis, superioribus dense breviter hirsutis ; fl. magnis 

 plerumque solitariis; bracteis non scarioso-marginatis; sepalis ovatis. 



