I860.] CYNOGLOSSUM SYLVATICUM. 237 



CYNOG-LOSSUM SYLVATICUM. 



On the Biennial Duration of Cynoglossum sylvaticum. 

 By John Sim. 



Cynoglossum sylvaticum, Hsenke, is only of modern origin as 

 a species, for until a recent period it was treated as a mere 

 variety of its more common and more widely distributed rela- 

 tion, C. officinale. Besides its now commonly received name as 

 above, it is known by several others, even in modern works, viz. 

 C. montanum, Lamarck; C. virginicum, Gmelin; C apenninum, 

 Roth ; C. virens, Schreber ; C. germanicum, Jacquin. 



In Ray (see Dillenius's edition) it is named Cynoglossa folio 

 virente, the green-leaved variety of C. officinale, and C. media al- 

 tera, viroite folio, rubro flore, montana frigidarum regionum, 

 (Columna, Ecphrasis, ed. Romse, 1616.) 



The history of the species is sufiQciently plain and satisfactory ; 

 but some of its other accidents are rather obscure and conflictive, 

 especially its duration and its distribution in Britain. 



In all our recent works on the British plants, C. sylvaticum is 

 stated to be of biennial duration. Hull is the only exception.'^ 

 Several English botanists of the eighteenth century have de- 

 scribed it erroneously in one respect, viz. calling it a biennial. 



The celebrated Dr. Withering, remarkable for his general accu- 

 racy, describes (edit. 1796) C. officinale as a perennial, and C. sylva- 

 ticum as a biennial. Mr. Wm. Hudson, who may be justly named 

 the father of modern British systematic botanists, in his first edi- 

 tion of the British Flora describes our plant as the var. virens of 

 C. officinale, and correctly states its duration as perennial. It is 

 true that he describes its principal, C. officinale, as a biennial. 

 But there are several instances among higher animated beings, 

 of children that have lived much longer than their parents. Sir 

 J. E. Smith implicitly follows his learned predecessor Withering, 

 and the largest part of the humbler historians, chroniclers, and 

 describers of British vegetation, has, with praiseworthy fidelity 

 and docility, followed these two magni coryphcsi (great lumina- 

 ries) of British botany. 



But the great leaders were not universally nor implicitly fol- 



* He is not a recent authority, but a second edition of his Flora was published 

 in 1808. 



