442 



united with G. Vaillantii. Steudel adopts the name of G. agieste 

 (Wallr.), for the two united into one species (Phytol. i. 1123). 



5. — Luzula congesta (Sm.). — This is a very common plant in Bri- 

 tain ; but Mr. Bentall having good grounds for believing that large 

 forms of L, campestris are frequently mistaken for it, examples of the 

 true congesta, collected by Mr. Bentall, are enclosed in each parcel 

 sent out. The correction of errors, by the distribution of properly 

 labelled examples, may be held one of the most useful offices of a 

 Botanical Society (see Phytol. ii. 168). 



6. — " Hieracium pulmonarium ? " (Smith's Herb.). — The Hiera- 

 cium pulmonarium of Smith, has been a puzzling species to botanists, 

 and is yet insufficiently understood. It has usually been accounted 

 a variety of H. murorum by those who refused to receive it as a true 

 species, while in the ' Manual of British Botany,' Babington quotes 

 it as synonymous with the H. diaphanum of Fries, and gives H. Law- 

 soni as a variety of the same species. The examples now distributed 

 are from my own garden. They are unquestionably the same species 

 as those in Smith's herbarium, interrogatively labelled " H. pulmona- 

 rium ? " To those specimens Smith alludes in the three last lines of 

 his account of the species in the 'English Flora ;" but in the herba- 

 rium (contrary to the statement in his printed work) they are men- 

 tioned to be garden examples. Curiously enough, however, these 

 examples of H. pulmonarium from my own garden, are certainly de- 

 scendants from three roots of H. nigrescens {JVilld.), which were 

 brought from Ben Aulder, in 1841. Indeed, three or four of the spe- 

 cimens actually came from those still living roots, while the others 

 were raised from seeds produced on them in 1843 and 1844. As the 

 H. nigrescens is usually deemed a variety of H. alpinum, while H. 

 pulmonarium has been often considered a variety of H. murorum, 

 this assertion about their identity will be received with some doubt, 

 and reasonably so. In expectation of this scepticism, I will defer 

 further explanations on the subject to a separate paper on these and 

 allied species, which I have been carefully watching under cultivation. 

 Meantime, I would refer to remarks on them already printed in the 

 ' Phytologist,' from Mr. Babington and myself (see Phytol. i. 804, 

 865, 1139). 



7. — Q^nanthe phnpinelloides (Linn.), Lac/ietmlii (Gmel.), and 67- 

 laifolia (Bieb.). — These plants have been abundantly written about 

 in the ' Phytologist' and elsewhere. They will, as a series, be much 

 better illustrated by the specimens now distributing, than was done 

 last year. Those of Lachenalii and silaifolia, collected by the Rev, 



