039 



give to the inadvertence into which he has fallen, that he no less re- 

 grets the circumstance than myself. 



Your readers would perhaps feel an interest in the history of this 

 plant, which will enable them to judge of its claims to be in any way 

 inserted among the British Flora. 



In the summer of 1845 I noticed on some ballast-heaps, composed 

 oi chalk andjiini, deposited on the outskirts of the limestone quar- 

 ries at Catdown, Plymouth, a Linaria (which had, I believe, been 

 previously observed, but passed unregarded) a description of which I 

 could not find. Tn consequence of this, I sent a specimen to Mr. 

 Babington, and subsequently a second, he not being able to deter- 

 mine the species by the first, owing to the absence of seeds. I fur- 

 nished him with all particulars as to the place where I had found the 

 plant, and the soil in which it was growing, suggesting for his consi- 

 deration the probability of its having been brought to Plymouth with 

 ballast. On the 15th October he wrote me as follows : "Linaria 

 from Catdown quarries. — After a very careful examination of this, I 

 have come to the conclusion that it is a form of the L. supina, called 

 L. maritima formerly by De Candolle. It is a native of the south 

 and west of France, and therefore may be a native with you. I hope 

 that you or some of your friends will look carefully into the question, 

 and endeavour to determine with certainty if it came with ballast or 

 not. Where does the ballast come from ?" 



Not having been able to procure any information at all satisfac- 

 tory, here my correspondence with Mr. Babington relative to this 

 Linaria dropped, and was not revived until I saw the plant in the 

 2nd edition of the ' Manual of British Botany.' I was startled to see 

 the words " a true native," and my name attached, because my opi- 

 nion always was that the plant came into the quarries by accident. 

 I immediately wrote to Mr. Babington, expressing my surprise and 

 vexation, when he replied (26th July, 1847), " I certainly never felt 

 more sure of anything than that you considered the Linaria supina a 

 NATIVE plant, not one introduced with ballast. As the latter, it must 

 be expunged from our lists. My belief is that the words were quoted 

 from a letter from you (I cannot find it now) in answer to one from 

 me, asking if the plant was really a native or not." The letter of in- 

 quiry to which Mr. Babington here alludes, must be that of the 15th 

 October, 1845, to which, as already stated, / never replied. He has 

 therefore laboured unr^er a misconception; I acquit him of all design 

 to propagate error ; and before this appears in print, he will have 

 employed the press to correct the mistake. 



