964 



V. flavicornis and of that which he considers V. canina, var. pusilla. 

 After the best investigation I can give, I am still of the same opinion 

 as when I drew up for Mr. Sowerby the letter-press, No. 2736; indeed, 

 I may say, that opinion is not lessened, but strengthened by the ex- 

 amination of Mr. Watson's specimens, and therefore I now boldly 

 venture to assert that V. flavicornis, E. B., V. canina, ^. pusilla, Bab. 

 Man., 2nd ed., p. 36, is the plant intended by Smith. The two fi- 

 gures in E. B., and the figure in Dillenius's edition of Ray's Synopsis, 

 t. xxiv. /. 1, well represent the specimen preserved in Smith's own 

 herbarium. I might have recourse to recollected conversations with 

 Sir J. E. Smith, were I not aware that such ought not to be resorted 

 to when we have authentic documents to rely on. 



The plant considered by Mr. Watson as V. flavicornis appears to 

 me to be one which I have long known, yet never could make up my 

 mind whether to consider as a variety of V. lactea or V. canina, but 

 as it most resembles the former, I agree with Mr. Watson in thinking 

 it not unsafe to refer it to that species, as he does in 'Cybele Britan- 

 nica.' It is not improbable that this may be intended by V. canina, 

 var. montana, in the Manual, but it must be observed, that the V. 

 montana of Linnaeus is a very different plant, of higher growth, with 

 larger, narrow leaves, never yet observed in Britain except in gar- 

 dens. V. Ruppii I have always supposed identical with V. lactea. 

 Smith : scarcely a variety. 



In thanking Mr. Watson for the communication of the specimens 

 of the two plants, I have already stated to him privately my present 

 sentiments, and I am well convinced he will think that I cannot con- 

 scienciously do otherwise than give the same to the public through 

 your useful periodical. 



Edward Forster. 



Woodford, 7tli September, 1847. 



[It is perhaps as well to mention that the Reports of the Meetings 

 of the Botanical Society of London are official, being kindly trans- 

 mitted by the Secretary, Mr. Dennes. We invite attention to this, 

 because Mr. Forster's introductory observation would imply that 

 these Reports were editorial. — Ed.] 



