175 



/ 



the first section of the genus, since the publication of the fifth edition 

 of the Flora. These are characterized by their transversely wrinkled 

 achenes, their white petals, and their naked nectary ; and two species 

 only — the R. aquatilis and hederaceus of Linnaeus — formed the whole 

 of the section in the former edition of the Flora. Mr. Babington 

 raised the number to five, by the addition of R. circinatus, Sibth., R. 

 fiuitans. Lam., and R. Lenormandi, Schiiltz. In the Flora we have 

 the R. tripartitus of DeCandolle introduced as a new species, thus 

 increasing the number in this section to six ; the editors however state 

 that they keep R. circinatus, aquatilis and tripartitus distinct, out of 

 deference to the opinion of Mr. Borrer, being themselves " not con- 

 vinced that the differences hitherto observed are of more importance 

 than to denote perhaps permanent varieties ;" DeCandolle himself 

 being doubtful as to the claims of R. fluitans to rank as a species. 

 Indeed, all the Ranunculi that grow in water are necessarily so much 

 affected by the varying conditions of that medium, that we must con- 

 fess our suspicions that the whole of the four so-called species are 

 merely transitory forms of one ; and they certainly differ not more 

 widely in character than that variety of R. aquatilis, called by DeCan- 

 dolle R. pantolhrix, which flourishes in running water, does from the 

 more common form of the same plant that covers the entire surface 

 of still pools with its reniform floating leaves and conspicuous while 

 blossoms. The name of Lenormandi, conferred by Schultz upon that 

 form of Raiumculus distinguished by Mr. Babington as R. hederaceus, 

 &. grandifiorus, is in the Flora superseded, at Mr. Borrer's suggestion, 

 by that of R. ccenosus, Giissone : and vrith regard to these two plants, 

 R. hederaceus and R. ccenosus, the editors seem inclined to go even 

 farther, and to adopt the opinion of M. Seringe, who has closely 

 studied the whole of the plants included in this section, and long 

 since recorded his conviction that all are mere varieties ; and we are 

 by no means sure that he is not right. 



The controversy respecting certain forms of violet which was car- 

 ried on in our pages a short time since, has led to the adoption, in 

 the new edition of the ' British Flora,' of Mr. Watson's conclusions 

 respecting Viola flavicornis and the allied forms. Thus, the V. syl- 

 vatica of Fries (V. flavicornis, Forst. in E. B. S. t. 2736) now stands 

 as the V. canina of Linnaeus ; and V. flavicornis of Smith, the V. ca- 

 nina of Babington, but not of either Gerard or Linna3us, is given as 

 the V. pumila of Villars. Under this species the editors observe that 

 " the name canina having been given by Gerard to the last species, 

 apparently as a translation of the common English name, and being 



