841 



of our soil ; which of the two deductions is the right one, I do not feel 

 myself competent to determine, though as regards the first, I can say- 

 that if it was formerly a common plant in gardens, it is not so now by 

 any means, and I have not once seen it in a state of cultivation in the 

 neighbourhood. — Robert C. R. Jordan ; Lympstone, Nov. 15, 1843. 



419. Note on Mr. Gibson's Hieracium hypochoeroides. My former 

 remarks upon this plant (Phytol. 801) are fully confirmed by the au- 

 thentic specimen, for the inspection of which I am indebted to the 

 editor of ' The Phylologist.' It is an identical species with the speci- 

 mens of Mr. Ward, Mr. Tatham, Mr. Gardiner, and others mentioned 

 in my former communication. In his parcels of the present year, Mr. 

 Gardiner labels the plant " Hieracium murorum, Z., /3. pulmonarium, 

 SmT I fully concur with Mr. Gardiner in looking upon it as a form 

 of H. murorum, though not the H. pulmonarium of Smith. The H. 

 maculatum of ' English Botany ' scarcely differs, except by its more 

 numerous flowers and stem-leaves, and by the stronger teeth of the 

 leaves. These characters are variable in the other forms of H. muro- 

 rum, in their wild states, and are commonly increased by cultivation. 

 In regarding H, maculatum as a luxuriant state of H. murorum, rather 

 than joining it with H. sylvaticum, I am probably almost alone. — 

 Heuett C. Walson ; Thames Ditton, November 20, 1843. 



420. Mr. Bowman on the specific identity of Hieracium murorutn 

 and H. maculatum. Believing this union to be conect, although in 

 opposition to the views of Hooker and Babington, I crave a corner in 

 ' The Phytologist ' for the following unpublished note, furnished to 

 me by the late Mr. J. E. Bowman. It was only this day that I met 

 with the note, in a list of localities sent for the ' New Botanist's Guide,' 

 about the year 1834 ; but being written under the head of " H. mu- 

 rorum" (a species too common for introduction into the Guide), it 

 had been passed over, and quite forgotten if ever read. " After long 

 and repeated observations on numerous Welsh specimens from vari- 

 ous localities, 1 am satisfied, notwithstanding what is said in 'English 

 Flora,' that this species and H. maculatum cannot be separated. Nei- 

 ther the shape of their leaves, nor their spots, nor the solitary leaf on 

 the stem, can be relied on. I have specimens that precisely agree 

 with Smith's H. murorum, only the leaves are spotted ; and others 

 that correspond with his H. maculatum, except that the stem is solid 

 and has only a single leaf. * * I have some specimens [of a 

 Hieracium] from the Breidden, which it is next to impossible to iden- 

 tify, and I have sometimes thought they may be a new species." So 

 entirely had this note escaped proper attention at the time, that I took 



