l6o THE SCOTTISH BOTANICAL REVIEW 



letter (H) which I prefixed to the names in the " Flora 

 Anglica " of Linnaeus. Of these erroneous names, how- 

 ever, many are also due to the first edition of the " Sp. 

 PI.," but there are many others, such as Arenaria saxatilis, 

 Cerastiuni tomejitosuin, Carex brisoides, Agrostis rubra, 

 Potentilla opaca, Polygonum pennsylvanicuin, Euphorbia 

 verrucosa, E. segetalis, Scilla bifolia, Anthericuin calycu- 

 latuin. Antirrhinum ai'vense, Thlaspi hirtum, Cochlearia 

 groenlandica, Cardamine bellidifolia, Brassica Erucastrum, 

 QLnanthe pimpinelloides, Salix rosmarinifolia, and others, 

 which are due to the interim works of Linnaeus ; thus 

 many plants were introduced to our flora on entirely 

 erroneous grounds, which it took many years to correct and 

 to eliminate. 



We may, therefore, with some confidence assume that 

 Linnaeus did not consider the " Flora Anglica " worthy of 

 citation, and that he attached very little importance to it. 

 For the various reasons I have given would it not be unwise 

 to attempt to strain the rules of botanical nomenclature, 

 bringing into the purview this trivial work in order to narrow 

 the limitations of one of the aggregate species of Linnaeus, 

 such as Ulmus cauipestris or Viola canina, especially when 

 the description and synonyms used in the second edition are 

 in no way different from those used in the first edition of 

 the " Species Plantarum " ? As Mr. Britten says (" Journ. Bot. 

 Sup.," xii. 1909), "It is absurd to suppose that Linnaeus, in 

 1754, raised to the rank of the species plants (in 'Flora 

 Anglica ') which a year ago he had considered varieties, to 

 which rank he again reduced them in 1762." So, too, we 

 may safely urge a similar treatment for his specific limita- 

 tions, and that the definition of Ulmus campestris and Viola 

 canina, which in 1753 had one meaning, and again the 

 same meaning in 1762, can be cited as having another 

 meaning in 1754, when the particular name used b}- 

 Dillenius, or the synonym he cites, is not referred to in 

 the second edition of the " Species Plantarum." Had the 

 synonyms, habitat, and description been altered so as to 

 agree with the " Synopsis," the matter would be different. 

 As I have already stated, Linnaeus identified the plants 

 of the " Synopsis " by the synonyms, without seeing the 



