ALCHEMILLA VULGARIS, LINN., AND ALLIED FORMS. 41 
that mountain. Now, if he took alpima, and no other person 
suostituted conjuncta for it, alpina must certainly in this case 
have changed into conjuncta; but as the latter is so often grown 
in gardens as a hardy herbaceous plant, it is just possible that in 
this case also the change may have been Ty much due to the 
gardener. 
Whatever A. conjuncta, Bab. (A. argentea, Don) is, or may 
have been, we have not, as a rule, had any difficulty in determin- 
ing A. vulgaris, Linn. It seems, however, that the plant 
generally known as vulgaris may be one of two or three forms. 
Linneus distinguishes (1) 4. vulgaris, with a variety B; (2) 
A. alpina, with a subspecies hybrida; and (3) A. pentaphyllea. 
There can be no question as to A. alpina or A. pentaphyllea, and 
later botanists have never raised any doubt regarding them. The 
latter species does not occur in Britain, while the former is so 
common in alpine situations that it may at once be dismissed 
from our notice. We have therefore only to deal with 4. 
vulgaris and its variety B, and bal? the subspecies hybrida of 
A. alpina. 
We will first examine the forms noticed in Hooker’s Student's 
Flora (Third Edition, 1887), beginning with A. vulgaris. After 
describing the species, he remarks (p. 127) that “A. montana, 
Willd. (A. hybrida, Pers.) is a dwarf mountain form with leaves 
and petioles very pubescent or silky.” It is to be regretted that 
he has countenanced the erroneous view that montana and 
hybrida are synonymous, and not truly distinct forms. It is 
therefore obvious that a fuller description is necessary to remove 
the confusion which exists regarding these plants. 
Linneus describes A. vulgaris as a hairy plant, which we 
know to be true, for all the forms we have ever seen of it are 
more or less hairy at one or other stage of their existence. What, 
then, is the form which Willdenow describes as A. montana? 
He ranks it with the species which he regards as A. vulgaris, L., 
and says of it that the leaves are “glabris,” while those of 
montana are “subtus pubescentibus.” Although this appears to 
be entirely the reverse of what Linneus states, I think there 
ean be little doubt that Willdenow used the descriptive term 
“glabrous” in a comparative sense. This conclusion may, at 
least, be safely arrived at when we compare the descriptions 
c 
