407 



single detached leaf, on tlie other sheet of ])ai)er, came in as a diffi- 

 culty, and induced me to write "apparently belong" instead of "cer- 

 tainly belong." 



Since reading the remarks of Mr. Forster, I have again compared 

 British specimens with those of Linnoeus, and still I can only come to 

 the same conviction. The unnamed specimen, pinned to the named 

 one, is exactly identical with specimens sent from Powick, by Mr. 

 Lees, to the Botanical Society of London ; as also with my garden 

 plant, originally from the Isle of Wight, and with wild specimens, 

 kindly supplied to me from the same island by Dr. Bromfield. The 

 detached leaf mny belong to this species also ; though I do not yet 

 feel assured on that point. 



The " wretched specimen," also without name, which Mr. Forster 

 thinks may be referrible to CEuanthe peucedani folia, is most assuredly 

 not Smith's species so called — our silaifolia : the fruit is quite diffe- 

 rent, and brings it nearer to globulosa. Possibly Mr. Forster may 

 have been misled in this instance, by Smith's herbarium, in which a 

 foreign fragment in fruit (probably of globulosa) is fastened on the 

 sheet of paper, which holds his British specimen of peucedanifolia. 

 In my earlier paper, which described the three species (Phytol. ii, 12), 

 1 mentioned Smith's blunder, for he has obviously described the fruit 

 of a wrong species in the ' English Flora,' and thus led to no little 

 confusion. The G5. globularis (if I remember right, such is the ma- 

 nuscript name) of the Linnean herbarium, seems different from the 

 globulosa of more modern authors, and looks much like another ex- 

 ample of pimpinelloides j but this remark is simjjly from recollection 

 of it. 



I presume that Mr. Forster did not honour me by looking at my 

 paper on these Q^nanthes in last year's ' Phytologist ' for January ; 

 otherwise he would have seen that I particularly mentioned the Basle 

 specimens, in describing Lachenalii (Phytol. ii. 14). 1 have not yet 

 discovered any errors in that paper. But I do believe myself able to 

 point out errors in all the other descriptive papers on these plants 

 whether printed in the ' Phytologist ' or in the ' Annals.' For the 

 greater accuracy of that paper, I may acknowledge my obligations to 



the specimens procured through the Botanical Society of London 



an institution now quite unrivalled in the assistance which it affords 

 members towards obtaining desiderata in British Botany. 



Hewett C. Watson. 



Tbames Ditton, January 7, 1846. 



