66 ON GENTIANA GERMANICA. M 
constant character, we have a good distinction between the plants; but 
unfortunately one that is not easily seen, except when the specimens 
ur artist does not seem to have attended to this part of 
the structure, for, although he represents at least one of the opening 
flowers as having the estivation attributed to G. Germanica, some of 
the others are (to say the least) drawn so as to admit of doubt, even if 
he has not given these the dextrorse contorted estivation of Œ, Ama- 
rella. I could have wished that the matter should have been left un- 
decided until after another summer had given us a chance of examining 
the fresh. plant, but learn that the Plate must now appear. I however 
retain my own doubts, and strongly suspect the value of the zstivation 
as a constant character in this case. The specimen figured (one of the 
smaller of some gathered in the parish of Buckland, in Buckinghamshire, 
and kindly sent by Mr. H. H. Crewe) has been compared with the 
examples of G. Germanica in Willdenow’s Herbarium at Berlin, by Dr. 
Carl Bolle, “a good critical botanist,” and he states that they are ** ab- 
solutely identical.” : 
Dr. Grisebach has kindly sent bits of his two plants to illustrate the 
difference in the germen. It will be seen by the extracts from ‘his 
letters annexed to these remarks, that he’ is very decidedly of opinion 
that the form of the germen is a good character. He refers us to 
Reichenbach’s ‘Icones’ for illustrations. I have examined the speci- 
mens and the plates quoted. In the specimens I find that the G. Ama- ` 
rella has a short but decided stalk to its germen, and do not think that 
a slight difference in the length (for that is all that I can make out) 
is sufficient for specific distinction. According to Reichenbach’s figures 
the G. Amarella has an absolutely sessile germen, whilst that of G. 
Germanica is very decidedly stalked,—a different condition, as it seems 
to me, from that of Grisebach’s specimens, and equally different from 
the result of my own former observations. I believe that the G; Ama- 
rella always has a real stalk to its germen, short indeed, often very 
short, but yet only differing in degree from the long stalk of G. Ger- 
manica. t is not pleasant to differ from so high an authority as Dr. 
Grisebach, but there would be no advance in botany if we allowed our- 
selves to be prevented from stating what seem to be facts, even in 
deference to the greatest men. Doubtless I am more likely to be in 
error than Dr. Grisebach, but perhaps my statement of a different opi- 
nion may lead him. to reconsider the question, and. point out, decided 
