LEGUMENIFER. 17 
Distinguished from the last, which it closely resembles, by its 
procumbent growth, and the pods being shorter than the sepals. 
The whole plant is less rigid, with larger leaves, and in this 
country at least, is usually destitute of spines. It is much more 
clammy to the touch, and has a stronger odour. The flowers are 
more distinctly racemose. 
As a satisfactory proof of the specific distinction between 
this and the last species, although so much alike, I may men- 
tion that the larvee of the moths Heliothis marginata and peltigera, 
which feed upon the present plant, refuse to eat O. campestris 
— showing there is some difference in their chemical compo- 
sition. 
Linnzeus appears to have had a very indistinct idea of the two 
preceding species of Ononis, if one may judge from the altera- 
tions in their nomenclature made by him from time to time. In 
the first edition of the “Species Plantarum,” p. 716, there are 
two names to represent these two, and doubtless a third species 
not found in Britain,—the O. hircina of Jacquin. ‘These are O. 
spinosa, with a var. 6 mitis, and O. repens. In the second edition, 
at p. 1006, there is an addition of O. antiquorum to the above, 
and in O. spinosa he has var. # mitis and var. 6 spinosa. In the 
twelfth edition of the “Systema Nature,” vol. ii. p. 478, O. 
spinosa is entirely expunged, and he gives O. antiquorum, O. 
arvensis, and O. repens. On turning to his Herbarium, there is a 
specimen of the O. campestris of Koch, a narrow-leaved form, named 
O. “antiquorum.”* There is a second specimen of O. campestris 
(Koch), the broad-leaved form, with two names (both in Linnzeus’s 
handwriting) upon it,—O. “spinosa” and O. “arvensis ;”’ the latter 
probably written at a later date. Besides this, on another sheet, 
there is O. hircina of Jacquin bearing the name of O. “arvensis” 
in Linnzeus’s own handwriting. A small stunted specimen of O. 
procurrens (Wallr.) is also in the Herbarium, bearing the name of 
Oe repens.” 
In this inextricable confusion I have retained the names 
“campestris”? and “arvensis,” because they are in general use in 
this country, though I have great misgivings respecting the 
expediency of this course; as when the botanists of each country 
seek only to preserve unity of nomenclature within restricted geo- 
graphical areas, it is fatal to all general agreement on the subject. 
Besides, the name O. arvensis has been used to include both our 
species, and it is always better to discard such a name, unless a 
majority of botanists have agreed to use it in a restricted sense, 
or there be sufficient evidence to show that the originator of the 
* This is not the antiquorum of Gr. & Godr., “ Flore de France,” as it has large 
flowers and an apiculate standard. 
VO. UEt. D 
