60 TRANSACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE [Sess. lv. 



E. Tetralix. — This being one of the parents of E. Watsoni, I 

 examined by naked eye and microscopically a large series of 

 examples from different localities during the past summer, 

 and concluded that it was about as stable and unvarying a 

 plant as one could select. Having made this statement I 

 will now compare it with the two remaining and doubtful 

 types. 



E. Mackayi. — This form was discovered in 1835 by Mr 

 "VV. Maccalla and Mr Ogilby,* and sent by the former to 

 Dr jMackay, the discoverer of E. mediterranea, who at once 

 saw that it differed considerably from the typical E. Tetralix. 

 When forwarded for examination to Sir W. Hooker, it was 

 named by him E. Mackayi ; and after being gathered in situ 

 by Professor Babington in 1835, it was named by him in 

 1836 E. Machayiana,'\' so that the former name has preference. 

 In the herbarium of the Eoyal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, 

 sheets from Professor Babington bear date August 1836, but 

 this must either have been a mistake — unless he again 

 visited the locality during the succeeding year — or the dates 

 must have been altered, as seems to me in some instances to 

 have been the case. A sheet from Dr Mackay bears no date. 

 Sheets from Professors Graham and Balfour, and also from 

 Dr Sibbald, all bearing date 1838, occur ; also from 

 Professor Balfour 1852, and from Mr Moore 1869. Mr 

 Mackay, in forwarding his plant to Sir William Hooker, says, 

 " The plant I send you resembles most, in size, mode of 

 growth, and form of its leaves, which have glandular hairs. 

 Erica ciliaris, in the disposition of its foliage and flowers, 

 however, it is quite different ; the former being arranged 

 pretty generally in fours or occasionally in fives, in a whorl, 

 and in the flowers which are in small terminal umbels. The 

 corolla, which is shorter than that of E. ciliaris, is not con- 

 tracted at the limb." Sir W. Hooker (p. 158), and later, 

 H. C. Watson (p. 225), regarded it as a probable hybrid 

 between E. Tetralix and E. ciliaris. Professor Babington, after 

 describing it, and showing that it resembled both E. Tetralix 

 and E. ciliaris in certain features, says, " There appears to be 

 some doubt as to the specific distinctness of this plant, several 

 of our best botanists (who have not seen it in its native 



* Hooker's Coinpatiioii to the I'otaiiical Magazine, vol. i, p. 158. 

 + Trans. Linn. Soc, vol. ix. p. 119. 



