12 



of Sir W. J. Hooker. Satisfied by this comparison, that the rejected 

 name was nevertheless correct, it was retained in the London Cata- 

 logue of British Plants, compiled in the Christmas week of 1843. In 

 doing so, however, I fell into an error parallel with that of Mr. 

 Babington, namely, rejecting one species, and retaining two only. 

 The author of the Manual evidently did not understand the peuceda- 

 nifolia of Smith. The Edinburgh botanists were distributing the 

 Lachenalii under that name. And Smith himself had made this ap- 

 pear correct, by describing the fruit of a foreign species (which resem- 

 bles that of Lachenalii), as the fruit of his peucedanifolia. Under 

 these circumstances, I supposed that the Lachenalii and peucedani- 

 folia, of the ' Manual,' might be identical ; even though Smith's pim- 

 piuelloides was meant by the former name. 



In 1844, the subject came under the attention of Mr. Ball, whose 

 practical knowledge of European plants and works enabled him to 

 clear away nnich of the obscurity. In his paper, published in the 

 'Annals of Natural History,' (July, 1844), he described three British 

 species, namely, pimpinelloides, Lachenalii, and silaifolia — intending 

 the peucedanifolia of Smith under this latter name. Mr. Ball's paper 

 was forthwith followed (Annals, August, 1844), by some good critical 

 remarks, from the pen of Mr. Babington, who concurred with Mr. 

 Ball in admitting the three species ; although not altogether so in 

 regard to their nomenclature. But it is made pretty evident, by their 

 papers in the ' Annals,' that neither of these two accurate botanists 

 were in possession of a sufficient series of English specimens. In 

 particular, Mr. Ball gives no description of the fruit of pimpinelloides, 

 and describes that of his silaifolia only, from immature specimens, 

 which do not suffice. After examining a number of specimens lately 

 sent to the Botanical Society, from various localities, along with 

 others in my own herbarium, I think the subject may now be ren- 

 dered tolerably clear. 



The roots of all three species consist of a cluster of fibres, which 

 are enlarged into tubers, through some portion of their length. The 

 forms of these tubers differ much, and afford good characters to sepa- 

 rate one species at least from the other two. Still they vary greatly 

 even in the same species ; and single tubers might be taken from 

 one species, which would then readily pass for those of another. In 

 all three species the tubers are continued below into thread-like 

 roots ; so that no specific distinction can be founded on this change. 

 The leaves are bipinnate, varying to tripinnate, or pinnate ; their 

 leaflets entire, or variously lobed and cleft. The leaflets and seg- 



