394 



As before explained in the ' Phytologist,' the misapplication of the 

 names " pimpinelloides " and " peucedanifolia " to the British species 

 known to Smith, was mentioned in the 'British Flora' of 1838, or 

 some earlier date ; and it is to be regretted that the author of that 

 work did not then substitute the names "Lachenalii" and "silaifolia" 

 in their stead. The (reputedly) true Linnean pimpinelloides was 

 certainly in some British herbaria before that date ; but its various 

 collectors had apparently always mistaken it for Lachenalii — in other 

 words, for Smitli's pimpinelloides. There is no reason to suppose 

 that any British specimen of the true pimpinelloides had come under 

 the examination either of Smith or of Hooker. 



In or about 1842, specimens of Lachenalii, correctly so labelled, 

 were sent to the Botanical Societies of London and Edinburgh, from 

 the locality of Michelfeld, near Basle ; a locality which brings the 

 plant home, or nearly so, to the ' Flora Badensis' of Gmelin. Proba- 

 bly these specimens came under the eyes of Mr. Babington, who 

 could appreciate their value. He had retained Smith's nomenclature 

 in the 'Edinburgh Catalogue' of 1841, but substituted the name 

 "Lachenalii" (instead of "pimpinelloides") in his Manual, which 

 was published in May, 1843. The specimens received by the Lon- 

 don Society, at the same time, passed through the hands of their 

 curator ; the identity of these specimens with Smith's pimpinelloides 

 remaining unobserved there, until I stumbled upon one of them acci- 

 dentally, late in 1844, while looking out something else. 



As for Smithii, whenever found in England, it appears to have been 

 rightly referred to Smith's peucedanifolia. But many botanists fell 

 into the error of referring their examples of Lachenalii also to the 

 peucedanifolia of Smith. It was obvious to me that such was the 

 case, even some years before I had seen a specimen of Smithii. But 

 my herbarium then containing only imperfect specimens of Lache- 

 nalii, and neither of our other two species, I saw the en-or without 

 being able to correct it properly. There is a passage on page 411 of 

 the 'New Botanist's Guide' (1837), in which the misnomers are men- 

 tioned ; but, of course, the " pimpinelloides " there spoken of was 

 that of Smith and ' English Botany,' not the species now believed to 

 be that of Linnaeus. No instance has come imder my knowledge, 

 where Smithii was mistaken for Lachenalii : the errors were always 

 the converse of this. 



When did the Linnean pimpinelloides become known as a British 

 plant? In May of 1840, I had brought a young plant of it, from the 

 Isle of Wight, to my garden, where that specimen and its descendants 



