406 



meaning of the passages in which they occur. At the same time, I 

 will take the liberty also of correcting one or two errors (as 1 conceive 

 them to be) in the paper of Mr. Forster, in reference to the specimens 

 in the Linnean herbarium. Perhaps it will be the readiest way of 

 putting right my own expressions, if I quote the sentences, and inter- 

 polate the corrections at their proper places. 



Page 391. — "Nothing whatever is attempted by Mr. Lees in the 

 way of answer to these queries, or [queries on] the nomenclature of 

 the species." 



Page 393. — " The exterior fruits in the umbellule of Smithii, are 

 rarely [nearly] of equal thickness from base to summit when full 

 grown." 



Page 396. — " And yet these two alHed [alleged] situations of 

 growth are there put in opposition to each other." 



Page 404. — Mr. Forster writes " In the herbarium of Linnaeus, the 

 specimen named by him Q*manthe pimpinelloides, and marked H. JJ. 

 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 pimpinelloides of Hudson, Smith, and subse- 

 quent 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 detached from the 

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

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

 named GEnanthe pimpinelloides, and marked H. U. — There is ano- 

 ther, which I think is a very wretched specimen of Qi^nanthe peuce- 

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



Doubtless it will become me to consider well what 1 say, in ex- 

 pressing opinions exactly opposite to those of the respected botanist 

 whose words I have just quoted. But I have had the species of 

 Qinanthe so much in thought and observation during the past twelve 

 months, and have examined so very many specimens from different 

 localities in Britain, Europe and Asia, that I cannot help feeling myself 

 familiar with their appearance and characters. I had carefully com- 

 pared British specimens with those of the Linnean herbarium, before I 

 ventured to say, while writing of pimpinelloides, in a former number of 

 the * Phytologist ' (Jan. 1845), twelve months ago, that "the speci- 

 mens in the Linnean herbarium, wanting root and fruit, apparently 

 belong here." Curiously enough, it was precisely that " unnamed 

 specimen " thought so different by Mr. Forster, which satisfied me of 

 the identity of our British species with that of Linnaeus ; while the 



