996 



Art. CCXX. — Varieties. 



483. Note on the Primula elatior. I am glad to find that the Pri- 

 mula elatior has, this season, claimed the attention of some of our 

 eminent English botanists, and that the result of their examination 

 quite coincides with the opinion I have formed respecting this plant. 

 It grows very abundantly in many of the woods in this neighbourhood, 

 while P. vulgaris is rather uncommon, and is never met with, so far 

 as my observation has extended, in the same woods as P. elatior ; in 

 a few places P. veris and vulgaris are found intermixed, and among 

 them is occasionally scattered a plant which I take to be a hybrid 

 between them, partaking of the characters of each, but it is quite dif- 

 ferent from the real P. elatior, both in the colour and form of the 

 flower, in the calyx, &c. ; but in these situations there are only a few 

 scattered among the two parent stocks, while in those places where 

 P. elatior grows, neither P. vulgaris nor P. veris is met with, which, 

 were the former only a hybrid between them, must be considered a 

 very remarkable and inexplicable circumstance. I have had a plant 

 of it in my garden for several years, where it retains in all respects its 

 specific characters.- -G. ^S*. Gibson: Saffron Walden, May 5, 1844. 



484. Proposal as to the Nomenclature of the Bardfield Oxlip. 

 Botanists appear more and more to incline to the opinion that Mr. 

 Doubleday's Bardfield oxlip is distinct as a species ; and I believe 

 they generally coincide also in the opinion that it is not the plant 

 termed elatior by Linneus and the majority of subsequent authors : 

 it may further be stated as the opinion of competent judges, that Mr. 

 Doubleday's plant is the Primula elatior of Jacquin. Sir William 

 Hooker, in the recently published edition of his ' British Flora,' gives 

 Primula elatior of Jacquin as synonymous with Primula veris &. ela- 

 tior of Linneus, without any allusion to the Bardfield plant, and Mr. 

 Babington gives the Bardfield plant as a distinct species, without any 

 allusion to the Linnean plant. We are thus compelled, in order to 

 avoid confusion, to speak of Mr. Doubleday's discovery as the Bard- 

 field oxlip, or JacquiiTbS elatior, or to devise some other unscientific 

 term in order to make ourselves understood. This does not seem in 

 accordance with the usage of science. It is quite evident that the 

 name of elatior is preserved out of respect to Linneus, but it is a tri- 

 bute of respect we have no right to pay. Were Linneus himself living, 

 would he not unite with us in opinion as to the non-identity of the 

 two elatiors ? Would he not say, " I object, gentlemen, to your 



