37 



likely with respect to those on the Down which is so much 

 further off. 



With regard to the Lysimachia, Professor Babington is of 

 opinion that it was originally planted by some cultivator of rare 

 species ; but Avithout further evidence of this, the improbability 

 of its having been brought, as it must have been, from a 

 considerable distance, to be set in a pond, not in a private garden, 

 but in an open field remote from the city, is against such a 

 supposition. Whatever may have been its origin, it is perfectly 

 naturalised there now, though, perhaps from the effect of 

 dry seasons, there has been very little of it seen, as I am 

 informed, the last two or three years. 



Having mentioned by the way these two very local plants let 

 us pass on to a more general consideration of the Bath Flora, 

 as respects the relative number of species in the principal families, 

 and their rarity or otherwise in England. Estimating the entire 

 number on the Bath List at 770, as proposed above, the Dicoty- 

 ledonous plants will be found to amount to about 570 out of 

 that number, the remainder, with the exception of the Equisetacece, 

 and FiUces, being monocotyledonous. More than half the 

 Dicotyledones belong to the families of BanuncuJacece, Cruciferce, 

 Caryophyllacecc, Papilimaccce, liosacece, Uinbelliferce, Compositce, 

 Scrqphularinece, and Labiates * which are all fairly represented in 

 the district, and contain each a large number of species. 

 The remaining families contain, most of them, comparatively but 

 a few species, and many of them only one. 



The monocotyledonous plants amount to about 175 species, of 

 which more than 100 belong to the Juncacece, Cyperacece, and 

 Grammece. The next largest families in this division are the 

 Orchidacece and the Liliacece, the former embracing nineteen 

 species, and the latter thirteen. 



• The same is probably true of the British Flora as a whole. 



