428 Mr. C. C. Babington on British Plants. 



correcting an error into which I have fallen concerning it. A 

 careful examination of the materials in my possession^ combined 

 with a belief that good botanists who were acquainted with M. 

 suaveolens and M. sylvatica could scarcely fail to see their di- 

 stinctness, caused me to express an opinion that the M. alpestris 

 of Schmidt, which so many authors of high repute have combined 

 with M. sylvatica, was probably a mountain form of it, and to be 

 specifically separated from M. suaveolens (Kit.). In that view I 

 was confirmed by specimens of M. montana of Besser, which is 

 usually placed under M. alpestris, being apparently a form of 

 M. sylvatica, with which Besser himself (Prim. PI. Gal. Aust. i. 

 142) identifies it ; and also examples of M. lithospermifolia (which 

 is usually considered as identical with M. alpestris), gathered in 

 Lucania and sent to me under that name by Prof. Gasparrini, 

 proving to be M. sylvatica. Having now acquired much fuller 

 information upon the subject, I find that M. alpestris of Schmidt 

 and M. suaveolens of Kitabel must be considered as identical ; 

 and the mistake of separating them may be perhaps excused by 

 the difficulties caused by wrongly named specimens and the in- 

 sufficient descriptions of the older botanists. Tausch has done 

 his best to separate them (Bercht. Fl. Bohm. ii. pt. 2. 123 & 

 124), but, notwithstanding his long descriptions, has failed to 

 point out any available difi'erences ; indeed he has quite over- 

 looked the attenuated base of the calyx and the absence of a keel 

 from the fruit ; although these are apparently the points upon 

 which the most confidence is to be placed as distinguishing 

 M. alpestris from M. sylvatica. It should be added, that for the 

 latter character we ai-e indebted to Dr. Godron (Fl. Lorr. ii. 129 ; 

 Fl. Fr. ii. 533). 



7. Thymus Serpyllum. 



Fries, in the year 1814, in the 1st edition of his ' Novitise ' 

 (p. 35) gave a short but very imperfect character of a new plant 

 named Thymus Chamcedrys, reserving, as he states, the description 

 of it for a future opportunity. This opportunity does not seem 

 to have occurred until 1828, when, in the second edition of the 

 same work (p. 195), he treated at considerable length upon the 

 T. Serpyllum of Linnaeus and his own T. Chamcedrys. Since the 

 latter period these plants have been a subject concerning which 

 botanists have greatly differed in opinion, most writers consi- 

 dering that they were only varieties of one species, but a few 

 following the example of Fries and distinguishing them. This 

 diversity of view has probably originated from that majority not 

 being acquainted with the living plants : the attainment of such 

 a knowledge has been the cause of my own change of view. 

 These plants well illustrate the difficulty which those solely, or 



