I860.] REMARKS ON THE ANNUAL ADDRESS. 103 



SOME REMARKS ON THE ANNUAL ADDRESS, IN THE 



' phytologist; for iseo. 



By a Correspondent. 



Barbarea interinedia, Bor., is, I believe, synonymous with B. 

 angustana, Bois., only, and totally distinct from. B. arcuata, B. 

 vulgaris, and B. stricta. B. intermedia is in appearance somewhat 

 between B. prcBcox and B. vulgaris, more like in its foliage to the 

 former, but with pods resembling those of B. vulgaris, only ter- 

 minating in a shorter, thicker style. It is not identical with 

 either species. 



M. Crepin (see ^ Phytologist,^ vol. iv. n. s. p. 11) distinguishes 

 B. intermedia from B. prcecox by the taste. The former is un- 

 pleasantly bitter, the latter a desirable constituent in salads. 



As a British plant B. intermedia is only known in the neigh- 

 bourhood of Manchester (Mr. Buxton, Mr. J. G. Baker, etc.), and 

 in Armagh, Ireland (Mr. A. G. More), probably in neither case 

 an indigenous plant. 



The plant mentioned at p. 3, under the name of Barbarea an- 

 gustifolia of Ehr., is still less likely to be confounded with any 

 of the British species, being placed by Reichenbach in the genus 

 Syrenia, and given by Nymann under the name of Erysimum 

 angustifolium, Ehr. Beit. {' Sylloge,' p. 194). 



Galium insubricum (of Gaud.) is mentioned in the third edition 

 of Babington's Manual, 1851, in the London Catalogue for 1850, 

 etc., if not earlier, only as a variety of G. Mollugo ; neither does 

 Mr. J. G. Baker consider it a distinct species (see ' Phytologist,^ 

 N. s. vol. iii. p. 19). 



Fumaria muralis, Sond. Should not this rather be considered 

 the substitution of a new name than as an instance of the trans- 

 gression of botanical boundaries ? From Mr. Babington's paper 

 (read before the Linnsean Society, Nov. 17, 1859) we learn that 

 F. muralis was first observed by Mr. Leighton, who, in his 

 ' Shropshire Flora,' considered it the type of F. capreolata, as 

 known by himself. 



That F. muralis is not an exclusively southern species is suffi- 

 ciently evident when we are told it is the same as the capreolata^ 

 yav. media, of Scandinavia, included under its proper name of 



