1060 



Art. CCXXXI.— Varieties. 

 501. Note on CEnanthe pimpinelloides. Allow me to make a few 

 observations upon the notice of this plant (Phytol. 1020 and 1031), in 

 which mj name is brought prominently forward ; and first, to state 

 that Mr. Ball's paper, which is there referred to, is contained in the 

 last number of the ' Annals of Natural History,' and that a paper of 

 mine, upon the same subject, is already printed off for the next num- 

 ber of that journal. To these I must refer Mr. Lees for the detailed 

 reasons which have led Mr. Ball and myself now to consider that we 

 possess three CEnanthes in this country, to which the names of CE. 

 pimpinelloides, CE. Lachenalii, and possibly QE. peucedanifolia, may 

 be applied. In common with Mr. Ball, 1 consider the first to be "very 

 rare," since we only know of its existence in Gloucestershire and Wor- 

 cestershire, from Mr. Lees' observations, and near Weymouth, from 

 specimens gathered by Mr. Garnons. A " very rare " plant is often 

 abundant in a few places. The observation that this species inhabits 

 dry places is highly interesting, and I believe new, as in all the books 

 to which I have, at this time, the opportunity of turning, the true CE. 

 pimpinelloides (not that of Smith) is stated to inhabit damp places. 

 CE. pimpinelloides {Linn.) was quite unknown to me as a British na- 

 tive, until I received information concerning it from my friend Ball, 

 and specimens from Mr. Garnons ; and as I had indisputable proof 

 that the plant so called by Smith, is the CE. Lachenalii, I had no other 

 course to pursue in the Manual, than that of omitting the former and 

 introducing the latter name. CE. Lachenalii always, as I believe, in- 

 habits salt marshes, or at least, marshes near the sea, a situation in 

 which the plant called CE. peucedanifolia by English botanists has 

 not, to my knowledge, ever been found. I have so often seen (E. La- 

 chenalii misnamed as CE. peucedanifolia, that I am led to suspect 

 that even Mr. Lees may have fallen into this error, especially as he 

 speaks of the "elliptical sessile knobs" of CE. peucedanifolia, in which 

 the knobs are really of an oblong-clavate form, whilst in CE. Lache- 

 nalii, they scarcely deserve the name of knobs, but are rather to be 

 described as long, fleshy, knotted fibres. On this subject however I 

 must refer to the papers already mentioned. It is not necessary to 

 occupy space here with an attempt to determine the plant to which 

 the name of CE. peucedanifolia really belongs, as I have entered fully 

 into the discussion of that very difiicult question in the same paper. 

 From the above it will be seen that I venture to differ from one of the 

 conclusions arrived at by Mr. Lees, and put into the form of an ab- 

 stract by the reporter of the London Botanical Society's meeting, viz., 



