629 



I cannot conclude my account of this species without thanking 

 those botanists who have kindly given me their opinions on the no- 

 menclature of the British species of Equisetum : the aggregate of 

 these opinions is in favour of the changes I have proposed. I observe 

 in Dr. Diedrich's ' Deutschlands Kryptogamische Gewaschse,' pub- 

 lished since my notes on the Linnean herbarium, that the author has 

 adopted the nomenclature given below. 



E. limosum, Diedrich, = the polystachion variety of E. palustre, 



Linneus ? A doubt may arise whether the polystachion variety 



of palustre, Linn., or fluviatile, Linn., be intended. 



E. fluviatile, Diedrich, = E. fluviatile, Linn, and E. limosum, Sm. 



E. Telraateja, Diedrich, = E. Telmateja, Ehrh., E. eburneum. Roth, 



andE. fluviatile. Smith. 

 E. umbrosum, Diedrich, = E. umbrosum, Meyer, and E. Druni- 

 mondii, Hooker. 



The other names correspond with those in Smith's ' English Flora.' 

 As Dr. Diedrich makes no reference to my observations on this sub- 

 ject, and indeed could scarcely, by any possibility, have seen them, I 

 think his publication may be received as further testimony in favour 

 of the changes in question, and it certainly confinns my intention of 

 adopting them, notwithstanding the expressed disapprobation of two 

 eminent botanists, Mr. Watson (Phytol. 587), and Mr. Babington, 

 (Manual, 379).* These gentlemen are themselves authorities in no- 

 menclature, and their decisions are received with a respect to which 

 mine are not entitled ; I therefore use no judgment of my own, know- 

 ing that it would not be received as authority : but having shown the 

 species described by Linneus under the name of fluviatile, that de- 

 scribed by Ehrhart under the name Telmateja, and that described by 

 Willdenow imder the name umbrosum ; and finding no descriptions 

 prior to these since the establishment of the binominal nomenclature; 

 1 revert to the names given by these authors as a matter oj course, 

 not one in which I have any right to exercise a judgment or opinion 

 of my own. I may however add, that Mr. Watson's remarks on the 

 habitats of E. fluviatile, Smith, somewhat startle me : the inference 

 to be drawn from half-a-dozen letters now before me, is, that the plant 

 in question not only does not but cannot grow in water ; but as none 

 of these are intended for publication, I forbear naming the writers. 

 In the confusion of names is it not possible that there is also a confu- 



* Wiililenhiirg, in his ' Flora Lapponica' (1812), clearly points out Smith's error. 

 — ri. Lap. 2t)8. 



