532 ' 



tisfactoiy stale of gi'owth : right hand appears to me to be Eq. arvense 

 of Smith ; left hand is perhaps Eq. palustre of Smith. 



Folio 6. 



Linneus. — 4. fluviatile. 



Linneus [Sp. Plant.*] — Fluviatile 4. Equisetum caule striato fron- 

 dibus subsiraplicibus ; [here follow the synonymesj. Habitat in 

 Europa ad ripas lacuum Jiuviorum. 2/. 



. [MS. addition over the word striato], an striato ? 



. [MS. addition on the opposite page, the copy being inter- 

 leaved, and in allusion to a reference to Haller]. Hoc caules prolife- 

 ros a sterilibus definiter profert. Hall. [The passage in Haller is this 

 — " Caulis floriger videtur a folioso remotus."+] 



. [MS. addition below the preceding]. Forte mera varietas 



prioris [palustre] ex solo aquae profundioris. 



Smith. — limosum ? Certe. 



E. N. — Four specimens, all with catkins, and identical with Eq. li- 

 mosum of Smith. As there is no representative of Eq. limosum of 

 Linneus, and as the marked copy of the work indicates that he did 

 not possess it, I subjoin the character. 



Linneus. — [Sp. Plant.]. Limosum, 5. Equisetum caule subnudo 

 lajvi, [here follow the synonymes]. Habitat in Europae paludibus, 

 turfosis, profundi^. 2/. 



. [MS. addition on the opposite page]. Hallerus hanc facit 



varietatem E. palustris. 



E. N. — It is clear that Linneus trusts to Ray as the authority for 

 this as a distinct species, since he quotes his figure,! which evidently 

 represents the unbranched form of Eq. limosum of Smith. Hence it 

 seems that Eq. fluviatile of Linneus is the branched, and Eq. limosum 

 the unbranched forai of Eq. limosum of Smith ; and that Eq. fluviatile 

 of Smith has no representative either in the herbarium or the works 

 of Linneus. With respect to the observation of Linneus quoted above, 

 that Haller makes this species a variety of Equisetum palustre, I think 

 the criticism is an unjust one. Haller quotes Ray's figure 3, and, as 

 it seems to me, correctly, as a variety of Eq. palustre ; while Linneus 

 quotes Ray's figure 2, which is evidently the Eq. limosum of Smith. 

 A positive proof that the fluviatile of Linneus was not the fluviatile of 

 Smith, exists in the fact that he attempted to account for its increased 

 size and altered appearance by its growing from the bottom of deep 

 water : this is the case with Smith's limosum, but never with his flu- 



* Sp. Plantamm, 1517. f Haller, Helv. 144. % Syn. t. 5, lig. 2, a, b. 



