102 TRANSACTIONS OF THE [Sess. lxxx 



Francliet for Bh. lacteum, Franch., Yeng-tze-hay the 

 station for Rh. lacteum, var. macropliylluin, Franch. The 

 specimens are cited from Herb. Kew. I must think that 

 Hemsley did not devote critical examination to the plants. 

 He is far too acute a botanist to miss the distinctions. 



Subsequently in 1911 when he described in the Botanical 

 Magazine under t. 8372 as Rli. lacteum., Franch. a plant — 

 really RJi. lacteum, var. macro pi ly Hum, Franch. — the 

 figure of which was derived from a lowering specimen in 

 the garden of Mr. F. D. Godman at South Lodge, Horsham 

 — he took the same attitude. There is no reference to 

 Franchet's variety. This as a criticism of Franchet's 

 work was dangerous. 



I have had occasion to follow along the path which 

 Franchet tr-od in several fields, and the experience has 

 always increased my admiration of his perspicacity and of 

 the accuracy of his work. When Franchet names a varietal 

 form within a species one may iuive conhdence that there 

 is a valid differential feature in the forms he deals with — 

 different though its value be in the eyes of botanists. 

 Franchet's attitude was conservative. Observe how he is 

 always endeavouring to bring the Chinese novelties with 

 which he is dealing within the limits of a specific type 

 already known from the Himalayas. He preferred to 

 extend the limits of a species rather than to break up an 

 aggregate. The case before us illustrates his extension of 

 specific limits beyond what is natural, and what I believe 

 he himself would have allowed had he lived to publish the 

 fuller account of the species of which these earlier descrip- 

 tions were only preliminaiy diagnoses. For there is no 

 doubt ab(jut it — FJc. lacteum, Franch. is one species, 

 Rli. lacteum, Franch. var. uiacropltyllum is another. 



RJi. lacteum, Franch. is apparently rare, Rh. lacteum, 

 var. macro pi iylhim, Franch. more connnon, and the latter 

 it is of wliich the seed came to Europe from Delavay 

 and from which the plants that have flowered in cultiva- 

 tion have been derived. Its varietal name having l)een 

 ignored it has usurped the specific one. 



Diels also misunderstood the Rli. lacteum, Franch. In 

 1012, accepting an identification I had made at Paris in 

 1906 of Forrest's No. 501 as Rh... lacteum, Franch. var. 



