94 



or tubercles, at the same time lessening the apparent size of the seed? 

 It is to be wished that botanical tourists would compare the seeds of 

 the wild plants. If constant, the difference in their surfaces will af- 

 ford a good character between species whose near resemblance has 

 led to many errors. Hewett C. Watson. 



Thames Ditton, February 12, 1845. 



Synonymes of CEnanihe peucedanifolia of Smith. 

 By Hewett C. Watson, Esq., F.L.S., &c. 



Since addressing to the ' Phytologist ' (ii. 11) some observations 

 upon this and the allied species, I have seen an CEnanthe among 

 Hohenacker's Caucasian specimens, in the possession of Dr. Charles 

 Lemann, which I take to be identical with Smith's species, and which 

 is labelled " silaifolia." Unfortunately, this specimen has only very 

 immature fruit, and wants the radical leaves; but its close resemblance 

 to the English examples, at an equal stage of growth, leaves little 

 doubt of their specific identity. Thus, if truly the "silaifolia" of Bie- 

 berstein, we may believe Mr. Ball quite correct in applying the same 

 name to the species described by Smith under that of " peucedanifo- 

 lia." That the latter is really the species of Bieberstein, is rendered 

 probable from the reference of that author to the figure in ' English 

 Botany,' 348 ; although some words in his description of the plant do 

 interpose a difficulty. Moreover, Ledebour's diagnosis of Q5. silaifo- 

 lia, in 'Flora Rossica,' almost exactly identifies the plant of the Crimea 

 with our English species — taking the fruit as described by myself, not 

 as described by Smith (from a wrong species), or by Ball (from speci- 

 mens too immature, and possibly belonging to Lachenalii). It is like- 

 ly that Ledebour fell into similar errors with the botanists of this 

 country, and confused different species together. In the first volume 

 of the ' Flora Taurico-Caucasica,' he gives one species only, under the 

 name of " pimpinelloides ; " though I suspect Lachenalii to be the 

 species really intended. In the Supplement to the same work, he 

 added a second species, his silaifolia, referring to the description and 

 fio-ure of Smith's peucedanifolia. And now (1844), in the new ' Flora 

 Rossica,' Ledebour describes three species as natives of the same dis- 

 trict — Lachenalii, silaifolia and pimpinelloides. I suppose, however, 

 that the Caucasian Lachenalii and Taurian pimpinelloides may be 

 identical ; as it does not appear that Ledebour had seen any example 

 of Bieberstein's " pimpinelloides," and the short character and refe- 



