1891] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 437 



find in " Herb. Genev." are from Sweden. I have not had any recent 

 seeds of it, as I have not collected the plant recently — not Avanting 

 specimens. So I fear I cannot help m.y good correspondent Mr. 

 Lloyd, neither have I any specimens to send to him of the plant.— 

 Yours truly, Charles C. Babington. 



To the Rev. W. Hunt Painter. 



Cambridge, March 14, 1891. 



Dear Mr. Painter, — I do not wonder at your being puzzled with 

 the Ptuhi. It often takes me some hours to arrive at even an approxi- 

 mate determination of a specimen — even if very good, as yours are, 

 and I am sorry to add that good specimens are an exception. I 

 think that Focke, and the Danes, and ourselves are usually fairly 

 agreed, even in difficult cases. Our botanists differ, because 1 

 believe some of our leading authorities have not the requisite time 

 to give to the questions ; and therefore their conclusions are not so 

 weighty as could be desired. I do not think that with our present 

 knowledge we should be justified in reverting to the old ideas, and 

 thus escaping from our difficulties. Even this trouble commenced 

 as early as Smith and Borrer's time : it has simply increased as we 

 got to know more. R. melanoxylon. I agree that this is the name 

 of your Lark Edge plant. Mr. Rogers sent me melanoxylon in its 

 more glandular state, from Wass Bank in Yorkshire. I have it 

 from Purchas, as authenticated by Focke. I have also the R. melano- 

 dermis, which looks much different, from the south. I think the 

 Biddulph plant is not the same. I made a mistake, pray excuse me. 

 It is probably a state of R. LincUeiimus. You mention having sent 

 two sheets, but I only find one of those named by Focke. I am glad 

 that you have a true melanoxylon. You must have received melano- 

 dermis from Devon or Dorset. I do now think that your anglo- 

 saxonicus is different from danicus. It is like the anglo-saxonims of 

 the "Rub. Exsicc. Dan.," No. 4L I therefore now agree with 

 you. At present I do not see how to separate it from Gelertii of the 

 same fine collection, Nos. 39, 40 ; and as Gelertii is No. 80 in the 

 original paper, and anglo-saxonicus 81, I feel bound provisionally to 

 use Gelertii as the name. I have authentic specimens of that also. 

 I fear that this is the little that I can do for you. — Yours ever, 

 Charles C. Babington. 



To the same. 



Cambridge, April 18, 1891. 



Dear Mr. Painter, — You have set me a hard task. I cannot distin- 

 guish the specimens from Denmark of anglo-saxonicus and Gelertii. 

 I find in my notes to that effect : the former " seems only to differ 

 by having a less hairy stem, leaflets rather more coarsely and 

 doubly dentate with very fine pale greenish felt beneath (?) the 



