1002 



ter of the Bardfield plant (Primula elatior, Jacq.) which will probably 

 afford a certain distinction between the latter and the spurious oxlips. 

 In the cowslip and primrose, and all their varieties, a circle of scale-like 

 glands surrounds the orifice of the tube of the corolla. These glands 

 are absent from the Primula elatior. It is diflScult to specify any other 

 sufficient character, as I have seen exceptional instances to all the 

 characters (taken singly) by which this plant is distinguished from 

 the other two species in Mr. Babington's Manual ; the specific cha- 

 racter drawn out by that author being quite accurate, but not invari- 

 ably applicable. While alluding to the oxlips, I take advantage of 

 the opportunity of also again mentioning a peculiar variety of the 

 primrose, spoken of in the first No. (Phytol. 9), although at the time 

 I was not aware that I was writing a letter to be printed verbatim. 

 The plant has remained in my garden since the spring of 1841, flow- 

 ering freely, but without a single young plant appearing about it: this 

 apparently countenanced the idea of its hybrid origin. To obtain 

 better proof, I collected the seeds last year, and sowed them this 

 spring in a flower-pot, kept well watered : the result is now seen in 

 dozens of young plants, which so far tends to negative the supposi- 

 tion of hybridity. These young plants will not flower before next 

 year. — Hewett C. Watson ; Thames Ditton, May 25, 1844. 



492. Note on Oystopteris alpina and regia. The long- mooted 

 question respecting the distinction between Cystopteris alpina and 

 regia appears to be in almost as unsatisfactory a state as it ever was. 

 Francis treats it in a very summary manner (see his note, foot of p. 

 24). His conclusion, that we " are bound to conclude that when the 

 the plant was vigorous, it took one character, and now that it is but 

 struggling for existence, it assumes the other," seems extremely un- 

 satisfactory. Last winter, some specimens came into my hands from 

 Mr. Shepherd, of the Liverpool Botanic Garden, a gentleman whose 

 long celebrity in the cultivation of ferns, renders his opinion of some 

 weight. One was marked " Cystea alpina. Hook. Br. Fl. Switzer- 

 land ;" the other, " Cystea regia, Bernh. Settle, Yorkshire. 1816." 

 The extreme dissimilarity between the specimens striking me at first 

 sight; and on further examining them with a glass, it being still more 

 apparent, I was induced to enquire further of that gentleman re- 

 specting them. He said that he had gathered C. regia himself at Set- 

 tle, twenty-eight years ago ; he had brought live specimens with him 

 from Settle, which plants he had cultivated ever since that time, but 

 they remained in every way (through so long a period of cultivation) 

 the same as those he had gathered in a wild state. The specimen he 



