■ 586 



other volume of a similar size. This might be remedied by dividing 

 the system into smaller portions, and having a corresponding number 

 of books, which would perhaps be an improvement ; in this case I 

 would allow a leaf to each species throughout. — Samuel King ; Lane 

 House, Luddenden, near Halifax, March 13, 1843. 



[The above is the only communication we have received in reply to the enquiry on 

 the wrapper of the March Phytologist, relative to the best method of arranging a her- 

 barium. We are obliged to Mr. King for his kind attention, and in our next number 

 hope to give further information. — Ed^ 



292. Note on the supposed new British Cerastium. In the number 

 for this month (Phytol. 497) Mr. Edmonston has endeavoured to show 

 that the Cerastium latifolium of Linnaeus was not known to British 

 botanists as an indigenous plant, until discovered by himself in Shet- 

 land ; the plants of Wales and the Highlands, hitherto so named by 

 the botanists of this country, being only a variety of C. alpinum. This 

 idea is backed by a reference to the opinion of Mr. C. C. Babington, 

 whose botanical acuteness, and particular study of the genus Ceras- 

 tium, combine to render his opinion on the subject deserving of atten- 

 tion. After reading the paper of Mr. E., I examined living plants of 

 the Cerastium alpinum and latifolium (of British authors), gathered on 

 Ben Lawers in 1841, and now in my garden; also numerous speci- 

 mens in my herbarium, from Wales and the Highlands, from Faroe, 

 Norway, Switzerland, and Arctic America ; and likewise the descrip- 

 tions of them by various botanical authorities. The conclusion arrived 

 at is, first, that the differential characters assigned to the two species 

 (of Linnseus) by Mr. Edmonston are quite untenable ; and secondly, 

 that the Shetland plant is in all likelihood a mere form or variety of 

 the same species as the C. latifolium (of British authors) found on 

 many of the Highland mountains. I consider the characters assigned 

 to C. alpinum by Mr. Edmonston to be untenable, because they would 

 exclude not only many of the Highland plants commonly called C. 

 latifolium, but also various specimens of undoubted C. alpinum pre- 

 served in my herbarium ; while, on the contrary, his characters of C. 

 latifolium (of Linnaeus) apply to some of my specimens of C. alpinum, 

 quite as well as they apply to my Swiss specimens of C. latifolium. 

 To go no farther than the leaves (which indeed afford Mr. E. the 

 strongest contrast — upon paper), I find this year's shoots of the Ben 

 Lawers plants, both C. alpinum and C. latifolium, bearing leaves 

 equally short, broad, and obtuse, as the leaves in Mr. Edmonston's 

 figure of his Shetland plant.- In some of my dried specimens of C. 

 alpinum I observe the leaves are obtuse, while in others they are acute ; 



