404 



the pimpinelloides, and marked H. U,, showing that it came from the 

 Upsal garden, is most decidedly that species which has lately been 

 added to the British Flora, and by no means the CEnanthe pimpinel- 

 loides of Hudson, Smith, and subsequent British authors. It is true 

 that there is no root, but the radical leaf is decisive. Our librarian, 

 Mr. Kippist, with his usual accuracy, reminds me that I ought to 

 state that this leaf is detPtched from the stem. The cause of this is 

 evidently the small-sized paper on which Linnseus' specimens are 

 fixed. To this paper is pinned another, with an unnamed specimen 

 of a very different plant, imknown to me, then follows one, again 

 named Q^nanthe pimpinelloides, and marked H. U. In this speci- 

 men the radical leaf is somewhat different from the first as to the 

 sharpness of the incisions, but not more so than the leaves of two 

 plants which 1 have growing, given to me by Mr. Borrer, from Dr. 

 Bromfield, one with round bulbs, the other with oblong. There is 

 another which 1 think is a very wretched specimen of Qi^nanthe peu- 

 cedanifolia, but it is not named, and therefore is of no avail whatever. 

 I may here mention that Jacquin's figure in ''''Flora Austriaca^'' 394 

 (not 395, as erroneously quoted) is a truly excellent delineation of 

 the CEnanthe pimpinelloides, Linn., and is rightly so named. 



In the herbarium of Smith, the specimen named by him Q'^inanthe 

 pimpinelloides is undoubtedly the plant we have now learnt to call 

 CEnanthe Lachenalii, and is very distinct from the Linnean Q^. pim- 

 pinelloides. One specimen is from "Aber, Htigli Davies^'' and one from 

 " Scotland, Mackay, vide * English Flora,' ii. 60," then comes another, 

 whether his own or his friend Daval's does not appear. This is a 

 very interesting specimen of the same plant; it is unnamed, but 

 marked ^^Hort. Lachenal, the Michelfeld plant^'' clearly meaning that 

 it was gathered in Lachenal's garden, from a plant originally from 

 Michelfeld. I have not been able to meet with Gmelin, ^Fl. Bad.,^ 

 in which it seems to have been first named. Koch has a synonym 

 " CEnanthe Michelfeldiense, Lachenal.'''' This may be from some 

 garden catalogue, or a temporary manuscript name, for it does not 

 occur in Steudel. The specimen in Smith's herbarium is strong 

 corroborative evidence. 



I have no doubt that Mr. Lees is correct in his account of the soils 

 in which these plants are found, but I would beg to call his further 

 attention to the dry places he mentions for Qinanthe pimpinelloides 

 and to suggest whether these may not be an exception to a general 

 rule, for 1 cannot help fancying that the habit of the plant in my gar- 

 den is that of a bog plant. We know that many plants sport in this 



