OR OTHERWISE INTERESTING PLANTS. 53 
T. flavescens, and am constrained to remark that the differences men- 
tioned are purely imaginary. Any botanist might be safely challenged 
to separate correctly Sicilian and Hungarian specimens which had 
been mixed together, with private marks attached, to distinguish 
them; and MM. Grenier and Godron, whilst admitting C. flavescens 
(Fl de France, i. 407), give the “ calice à tube dépourvu d’anneau ~ 
calleux à la gorge" as the sole distinction. It is possible that in 
Sicily the plant has always yellow flowers, but this is a character of 
little value, for 7. pallidum has always been recognized as variable 
im this respect. Koch says, “flores albi vel colore roseo suffusi;" 
Visiani, “ flores albidi vel colore roseo suffusi;" and from albidus 
to flavescens, or luleolus, as Bertoloni niin it, the transition 
is very s ight. Besides which, a precisely identical variation is 
met with in Z. incarnatum, L., wild British specimens of which 
are always yellow-flowered; and the blossoms of the common 7. 
pratense, L., vary from rosy-purple to white or yellow. As to the 
callous ring, which appears to be mainly relied ;on as a ground of 
discrimination, I have been quite unable to find such in either. The 
calyx-tube has a dense annulus of fulvous hairs inside, but I do not 
see any callosity, properly so called, even after careful softening i in 
boiling water, and with the aid of a powerful lens; but it is very 
probable that the line where the ring originates jon become more 
or less thickened in the advanced fruit-calyx, which I have not had 
the opportunity of examining. The flowering calyx-tubes of both the 
Hungarian and Sicilian plants certainly appear quite similar. Hen 
I quite concur in Bertoloni’s judicious observation (Fl. Ital. viii. em 
* Conlatis pluribus exemplaribus 7. pallidi, Fl. Hung. (sphalmate 
typog. pallescentis) et T. flavescentis, Tin., nullam essentialem differen- 
tiam inter ea inveni. Color coroll: et mas callosus in fauce tubi 
calycini idem habetur in utroque, sed annulus est visibilior in calyce 
fructifero. Recte igitur Preslius conjunxit has plantas." I do not, 
indeed, see how they are to be regarded even as distinet varieties. 
5. Trifolium ovatifolium, Bory et Chaubard.  Bertoloni, I believe, 
is the only one who has asserted the identity of this plant with 7. 
alatum, Biv. (=T. Cupani, Tin.), and I do not know that any writer 
nfirmed his statement. I have carefully compared Sicilian spe- 
cimens with others of T. ovatifolium, gathered in Caria by Pinard, and 
am quite satisfied Bertoloni's opinion is correct. 
