Druce: Helleborine Hill or Epipactis Adans.? 645 



of many of his genera, and shows clearly the differences which 

 mark as distinct such genera as Limoniiun and Statice, Valeriana 

 and Valerimiella, Linaria and A}itirrhinuvi, and Trifoliunt and 

 Melilotus, This work has escaped the attention of non -British 

 botanists, and from its not adopting the binomial system remained 

 unquoted, even in the Index Kewensis. But from the description 

 of the species and genera, the reference to other writers, as well as 

 the engraved plates and its valid data of publication, it is available 

 for citation of genera.* In the British Herbal Hill not only sepa- 

 rates the genera given above, but also distinguishes Centa^irhim 



)m Papaver^ Polygonatn 

 Nymphoides from Mem 



Hed\ 



Damasoniitm 



Asplenium^ Me 



fane a from Fagus, Cirsium from Car dims, Oxy coccus from Vac- 

 ciniiim^ Pneianaria from Puhnonaria^ Cammarum from Helleborus, 

 Radicula from Sisymbriitniy Lens from Ervuui, and, as we shall see, 

 Helleborbie from Serapias^ genera which had been wrongly united 

 by Linnaeus. 



In the British Herbal, 477, Hill defines Helleborine so as to 

 exclude Serapias Lingua (itself a composite species), as described 

 by Linnaeus, practically in this following Ray and Tournefort, but 

 excluding Cypripediiini. Hill goes on to say " Linnaeus places 

 this among the Gynandria decandria^ the filaments being two and 

 inserted in the pistil. He takes away the received name and calls 

 it ScrapiasT We have thus in Hill's description a proper defi- 

 nition of Tournefort's genus made more accurate by the exclusion 

 of Cypripediinn^ and limited to the true Helleborine, and the plants 

 afterwards separated by Richard as Cephalanthera. Of the six 

 species described by Hill five are cited from Caspar Bauhin and 

 one ( Cephalanthera longifolia^ from Ray's Historia. Unfortunately, 



Adanson (Families des Plantes 2 : 70. 1763) established (what 

 has been called a genus) Epipactis ; he separates no new genus 



*In passing, one may say if Thellung (Bull. Herb. Boiss. II. 8 : 77S. 1908) is 

 correct in quoting Garsault for specific names, Hill is also available and has undoubted 

 priority, but as the binomials used by both authors are accidental, it is wiser to ignore 

 them. 



