587 



and in a specimen of C. latifolium (of British authors), gatliered on 

 Ben Lawers, there are lanceolate, ovate, and almost orbicular leaves 

 from the same root. In Koch's Synopsis, the same terms are applied 

 to the leaves of both species, namely, " elliptic or lanceolate." It is 

 consequently evident that Mr. E. was describing only particular forms 

 of these plants, when he set down the leaves of C. alpinum as "ovate, 

 or ovate-lanceolate, acute," and those of C. alpinum as being "orbi- 

 cular, obtuse." Each species produces both these forms of leaves. 

 The other contrasted characters given by Mr. E. appear to be as little 

 constant as those taken from the leaves. — Hewett C. Walson; TJiames 

 Ditton, March 28, 1843. 



293. Localities of Orchis hircina, Scop, and O. macra, Lindl. For 

 the information of your con'espondent, Mr. E. Edwards (Phytol. 555), 

 I send the following. Orchis hircina, Scop., in consequence of the 

 rapacity of collectors, is nearly if not entirely eradicated from the 

 neighbourhood of Dartford, Kent. It was to be found to a certainty 

 near Puddledock and Stanhill, in Wilmington parish, about twenty or 

 thirty years ago, in the hedge-rows ; also at Trulling Down, in the 

 road to Greenstreet Green. Sir James Edw. Smith, Sir Wm. Hooker, 

 Mr. Borrer, the late Professor Don, Mr. George Don, Mr. Joseph 

 Smith, Mr. Anderson of Chelsea, and myself, have gathered it in these 

 stations, and I dare say it is still to be met with at or near some one 

 of the above-mentioned places. Orchis macra, Lindl., I have gather- 

 ed at Stonewood, near Bean ; at the entrance to Lullingstone castle, 

 and in a copse near the farm-house at Mapplescombe, in Kingsdown 

 parish ; and I think it is likely to be met with now at the latter place, 

 if diligent search be made for it. — Win. Peete ; Keston Heath, April 

 6, 1843. 



294. On the proposed change in the name of Equisetum limosum. 

 To alter a name which is now generally adopted by botanists, solely 

 because a different name was applied to the same species of plant a 

 century ago, would surely be an adherence to the letter rather than to 

 the spirit of that useful rule which says that priority must decide the 

 name. The rule itself is highly convenient to prevent confusion in 

 nomenclature, but surely, it is better to disregard the rule in any par- 

 ticular case, where an adherence to it would actually create confusion. 

 Moreover, in the present instance, it seems doubtful whether the rule 

 really sanctions a change. I deem it highly probable that the two 

 Linnaan names, E. limosum and E. fluviatile, belong to two forms 

 (unbranched and branched) of the one species which Smith and hosts 

 of other botanists have known under the former name. If so, the 



