396 



species applied to the Linnean species. There is no ground for sup- 

 posing that Mr. Lees had the slightest idea of his specimens being 

 anything different from the Smithian pimpinelloides. His labels, up 

 to 1843, show that he referred plants of the latter species to Smith's 

 peucedanifolia. And even in the paper which calls forth this present 

 one from myself, he still confuses the Linnean and Smithian pimpi- 

 nelloides, as though he thought them one and the same thing, because 

 they have been unfortunately designated by the same name. 



If any reader should doubt the possibility of this confusion of ideas 

 so late in the discussion, he has only to read some few lines in the 

 middle of page 355 of Mr. Lees's paper, and he will see a glaring 

 proof that such is the case. The plant of the " driest ground " is the 

 Linnean pimpinelloides ; the plant of " salt-marshes " is the Smithian 

 pimpinelloides — really Lachenalii ; and yet these two allied situa- 

 tions of growth are there put in opposition to each other, as if they 

 really had been assigned for the same single species only. The like 

 strangely illogical confusion of ideas is again repeated about the mid- 

 dle of page 362, where the author is writing about the involucral 

 bracts of " pimpinelloides ;" the Linnean and Smithian species being 

 still confounded together, and Smith's statement, respecting the bracts 

 of one species being disputed, because Mr. Lees finds something dif- 

 ferent in the bracts of the other species. 



I have thus dwelt on the history of these plants, or, rather, that of 

 our knowledge of them ; because, unless we can clearly make out 

 which species was intended at different dates, under the same name, 

 the recorded localities will still lead to many mistakes. In most of 

 the localities recorded for pimpinelloides {Smith), before 1844, we 

 may expect to find Lachenalii ; which is only another name for the 

 same species. To this, it may be presumed, we shall have exceptions 

 in any localities recorded by Mr. Lees ; and in these we may expect 

 to find the species now designated pimpinelloides {Linn.). In loca- 

 lities recorded for peucedanifolia {Smith), we may sometimes find 

 that species ; but as fi-equently it will be the Lachenalii. As far as I 

 have seen specimens, all the Scottish and Irish localities, assigned 

 for peucedanifolia, belong to Lachenalii only. My own account of 

 the ascertained distribution of the three species, derived from speci- 

 mens examined, is more complete than that attempted by Mr. Lees 

 (Phytol. ii. pp. 13, 14, 15). 



My remarks are running out so far that I must pass over some 

 other inaccuracies without allusion ; but Mr. Lees' description of the 

 roots of the three species is so confidently expressed, although far 



