1077 



Art. CCXXXY.— Varieties. 



502. Note on Anthyllis vulneraria. In reply to Mr. C. C. Babing- 

 ton's enquiry (Phytol. 1019) respecting my diadelphous state of An- 

 thyllis vulneraria, I regret to state that all the specimens I have by 

 me are monadelphous, or, as Mr. Babington observes, with one fila- 

 ment free at the base and summit. What became of the identical 

 plants I examined in the fresh state, I know not. Mr. Ralfs, to whom 

 1 shovred my plant before I sent the note for insertion in your pages 

 (Phytol. 1000), desires me to say that on my mentioning the subject 

 to him, he supposed me to be in error, or to have separated one fila- 

 ment by violence in dissection ; but on examining a flower in my spe- 

 cimen, found it decidedly diadelphous. — Alfred Greenwood; Chelms- 

 ford, June 26, 1844. 



503. A few more words on the London Catalogue. For reasons 

 best known to himself, your respected correspondent, the attempted 

 vindicator of the London Catalogue (Phytol. 1014), has carefully left 

 untouched the main points of Mr. Sidebotham's letter or critique in 

 the May No. (Id. 972). He may say, perhaps, that the details of the 

 letter occupied no place in his attention while penning the defence : 

 in fact he tells us at the outset, that he writes merely at the suggestion 

 of the "editorial note" appended thereto. But standing forth as does 

 Mr. Dennes, the champion of the new list, especially too as he con- 

 descends to notice some part of the letter, it was certainly to be 

 expected that he would hare entered at greater length upon its more 

 important portions. To this, again, he may reply by repeating that 

 Mr. Sidebotham's strictures were mostly founded on misapprehension, 

 and therefore did not call for special answer. If it is a misapprehen- 

 sion that Viola odorata is marked in the list as an introduced plant, 

 and that the numerous changes specified by Mr. Sidebotham, are 

 meant to be literally intei^preted, of course there is no need for expla- 

 nation. But there can be no mistaking the facts which he has cited ; 

 and as the letter was simply one of enquiry, — as Mr. Sidebotham 

 evidently had no other object in view than ascertaining the reasons 

 for certain changes, [ do hope next month's ' Phytologist' will be a 

 satisfactory one in the matter of reply. To come however to particu- 

 lars. Mr. Sidebotham never " accused " the London Society of mak- 

 ing " extensive changes in nomenclature." He merely enquired why 

 the new nomenclature introduced by the Edinburgh Catalogue and 

 other publications, with good stated reasons, was not adhered to, in- 

 stead of older names being in great measure restored. This circum- 

 stance is the more remarkable from the interest which the London list 

 professes to take in the convenience of foreign botanists: inasmuch 



