1889] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 425 



might be Colemanni, unless it is an anonymous specimen ("Hedge, 

 Fursdon, July 13, 1886 ") which you said "approaches incurvatus but 

 is not any described species." But that is slightly felted, and 

 may approach your ramosus. These plants are very hard. How 

 much more convenient if we could make a few aggregate species, 

 as Baker has done in the "Student's Flora." But I do not 

 see my way to doing this, and wishing it will not do it. I freely 

 confess that I do not see my way amongst these (so to call them) 

 mmosi. Did Focke give any idea as to where he would place 

 your ramosus 1 Although not known to him, it surely must have 

 been known to Genevier : but his book is very difficult to use, and 

 therefore his herbarium, arranged according to it. The exceeding 

 weight which he placed on the colour of the petals seems to 

 separate nearly allied plants often very greatly. Have you formed 

 any idea of what he would have done with our ramosi ? or any of 

 them 1 I shall probably have to write about the others you mention 

 in due time but not now ; only I should like to know what it is 

 that he has named Devoniensis. I see that Focke places brachijphyUos 

 to arduennensis, and that I have thought it might be my discolw- 

 pubescens or puUgerus. I fear that I cannot have anything to do 

 with the plant in question. Amongst difficulties such as these, 

 your notes would be invaluable. I will write again soon. — Yours, 

 truly, Charles C. Babington. 



To the Rev. E. S. Marshall. 



Cambridge, Nov. 19, 1889. 



Dear Mr. Marshall, — I have thankfully received the root of 

 Saxifraga caespitosa which you have so kindly sent. I have placed 

 it in the hands of the curator of our Garden, as a much more 

 safe place to grow it than any that I can give to it. I believe 

 *S^. caespitosa to be a quite distinct species. I am happy to say 

 that our plant of Cerastium ardicum has recovered and grown 

 well this summer. It is now dying down for the winter. I 

 have no doubt that most, if not all, of what we have called 

 C. latifolium is C. ardicum. — Yours very truly, Charles C. 

 Babington. 



To W. Wilson, Esq., Junr. 



Cambridge, Nov. 27, 1889. 



Dear Mr. Wilson, — I have read your book with much interest,, 

 and made a few notes as I went on. I now enclose them without 

 revision, as they may interest you. I think that your book is a 

 very valuable one. Wishing you all the happiness that you can 

 desire, I am, yours very truly, Charles C. Babington. 



