395 



are still growing. During a great part of the summer of 1841, and the 

 whole botanical season of 1842, I was absent from home ; but in 

 1843 I began to consider what this same plant really was. Even at 

 this late date, however, I was still at fault about the other two species ; 

 one of which (Smithii) I had never seen alive, and the other (Lache- 

 nalii) only twelve years before, when I was quite a beginner in 

 Botany. About the close of 1843, I compared my garden plant with 

 the Sardinian specimen of pimpinelloides {Linn.) in the herbarium of 

 Sir William Hooker ; and of course that species was then clearly 

 proved a native of Britain. In 1844, Professor Balfour kindly sup- 

 plied my garden with living plants of Lachenalii, and in the autumn 

 of that year, I again collected that species on the coast of Devon. 

 Of Smithii I have seen dried specimens only. 



Mr. Ball appears to have been the first botanist (Mr. Lees excepted, 

 of whom I will presently speak) who got together specimens of all 

 three species, in a sufficiently good condition for determination. Mr. 

 Babington was in train, however, and I suspect that he had failed to 

 determine the plants, through not possessing a sufficient set of speci- 

 mens. I had, indeed, given him garden examples of the Isle-of- Wight 

 pimpinelloides, dried in 1843 ; but these having been sent simply to 

 illustrate changes in the roots, according to age, they were not well 

 calculated to show an unfamiliar species distinctly, and in his paper 

 of June, 1844, they appear to be alluded to as examples of Lachenalii. 



Meantime, what was Mr. Lees doing ? This gentleman had seen 

 and collected all three species in a living state. His advantages and 

 opportunities were thus greatly superior to those enjoyed by any 

 other botanist ; and it is truly remarkable that he should have done 

 nothing towards their elucidation. Speaking of the species by their 

 present names, his operations were these : — 1. He collected pimpi- 

 nelloides, and mistook it for Lachenalii. 2. — He collected Lachenalii 

 and mistook it for silaifolia. 3. — He collected silaifolia and gave it 

 a right name (peucedanifolia of Smith), and yet he failed to see that 

 it was a different thing fi'om Lachenalii. 



We all blundered through deficiency of specimens. But Mr. Lees 

 thoroughly beat all of us at blundering. He saw all three species in 

 a living state, and in their native localities, and yet he blundered 

 more than any of us. It is true, as stated in the ^ Phytologist,' that he 

 labelled his specimens of pimpinelloides' {Linn.) with the name 

 " pimpinelloides ;" but he did so under the mistake of supposing it 

 the Smithian plant so named. The species was mistaken, though the 

 name was right by a misapplication. It was the name of Smith's 



