1888] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 417 



and that all our plants so called are only stagnalis, as seems conveyed 

 in the note on p. 20 ; the bracts are persistent on the plant figured 

 in E. B. S., 2864, and therefore that is probably stagnalis, as seems 

 probable if platycarpa has linear lower leaves. In my own herbarium 

 I find only one set from Witchford, in Cambridgeshire, which can 

 be polymorpha (I had named it platycarpa). They accord well with 

 the description. If I remember correctly, it was floating in a stream. 

 All its lower leaves linear, but slightly widening at the end, and 

 •emarginate. The flowering leaves are rosulate, but the internodes 

 •extend, as the fruit advances, so that the upper stem-leaves and the 

 rosulate leaves are similar, at first roundly spathulate, but becoming 

 ovate-spathulate as they get older. The young styles are I think 

 •exceedingly long, but their direction is difficult to decide. The 

 fruit is all rather young, but seems smaller than that of stagnalis. 

 Apparently the stamens were enormously long. The fruits are 

 very young, but apparently, although decidedly keeled, are not 

 truly winged as those of stagnalis. This I found as long since as 

 1855, and had left without any certain determination, although 

 calling it platycarpa. I have omitted the station in the " Cambridge 

 Flora," as doubtless having had a doubt concerning the true name 

 ■of the plant. I hope that you will see Hanbury (Plough Court, 

 37, Lombard Street) before publishing about your Hieracia. But 

 probably you have done so. I shall be glad to receive it. You 

 have sent me rigidum (Backh.) and horeale. I shall see your paper 

 on the nomenclature soon, and am glad you have taken the matter 

 up. — Yours truly Charles C. Babington. 



To T. E. Archer Briggs, Esq. 



Cambeidge, March 10, 1888. 



Dear Mr, Briggs, — I am very much obliged to you for the trouble 

 which you are taking. Perhaps I ought not to have expected you 

 to be able to find corresponding specimens to those in my herbarium 

 from you so long since. But I ventured to take the chance, as those 

 specimens would add to the range of the true lentiginosus so con- 

 siderably. I quite agree with you that Lees' plant, of which I have 

 authentic specimens before me, does not go to the suberecti as we 

 have erroneously supposed, but to the Bhamnifolii, to which also 

 iiffinis goes, as is done by Focke. The supposed western specimens 

 of lentiginosus are from "Common Wood, August 4, 1865." It is 

 ticketed, but not in your hand, "incarnatus, Miill., Genev. "! Also 

 the other three to which you gave no name, and for which I have 

 given you the extracts from the tickets. I have marked all the 

 four as probably lentiginosus (Lees) ; and consider Lees' plant to be 

 distinct from affinis. Its petiole terminal leaflet = |- of leaflet, — 

 that of affinis = \ leaflet. The plant suspected by Bloxam to be 

 ^linthostylus belongs to the cordifolius of us. It is from " Dartmoor 



27 



