742 



in ' English Flora,' (iii. 375), as Hypochoeris maculata : you will also 

 find the same plant referred to the H. maculata by the following 

 authors, viz.. Withering, in his fifth edition, page 852 ; Watson, in 

 his ' New Guide,' page 285 ; and Baines, in his ' Yorkshire Flora,' 

 page 64. It is now fourteen years since I examined this plant, and 

 found it to belong to the genus Hieracium ; and as it is now upwards 

 of thirty years since this error crept into our books on British plants, 

 I should think it quite time for it to be corrected : there is no doubt 

 of its being a species of Hieracium, and a plant which is not de- 

 scribed by any writer on British Botany. It may be described by 

 continental botanists, and if it be, the name I have given to it will 

 of course have to be given up, and the one adopted which had 

 been given to it before. The enclosed specimen is one of its most 

 common forms : you will observe it is two-flowered ; it is rarely found 

 with one flower. At the first glance the plant has certainly a great 

 resemblance to Hypochoeris maculata, but when subjected to a more 

 minute examination it will be seen not to belong to that genus, — Saml. 

 Gibson ; Hehdeii Bridge, September 5, 1843. 



368. Note on Plants apparently indigenous. Since Sir William 

 Jackson Hooker tells us (in the fifth edition of his ' British Flora,' 

 Introduction, page viii.) that the " Martagon Lily and the American 

 Touch-me-not can have no claim to be considered British plants," I 

 ^ould just ask Sir William seeing he has in that edition of ' British 

 Flora,' inserted the Italian Rye-Grass without the asterisk to denote 

 its being naturalized, or any of your readers, what claim that plant 

 can have to a place in our Flora, since it has ^ot yet gone beyond 

 the bounds of cultivation, and it is but a very short time since it was 

 brought to this country ? If I had found the Mimulus luteus on our 

 list, I should not have been half so much surprised as I was to find 

 that the Italian Rye-Grass had found its way into our Flora, for in- 

 deed the Mimulus luteus has often been found where it might have 

 been considered truly wild, had we not known from whence it came. 

 The following is an extract from a letter which I received from Mr. 

 John Gilbertson, of Preston, dated September 2, 1843. "Perhaps 

 you will be kind enough to inform me whether the monkey-plant, so 

 much cultivated in our gardens, is a native of this country, at least 

 if it is known to be so ? I had the pleasure of finding it in gi-eat 

 abundance a few weeks ago." We might mention a great many plants 

 which has quite as much claim to a place in our Flora as the above 

 Lolium can have. — Id. 



369. Note on Cystopteris regia and C. alpina. At page 712 of 



