673 



Mr, Hort (wliom, I may remark, in passing, the very cautious author 

 of the Cybele mentions as a trustworthy authority). Thus endorsed, 

 the question seems worthy the attention of British botanists. 



My views, in brief, are these : — The spinulose Lastreas, as is well 

 known, present an unbroken series of forms between those known as 

 crislata and foenisecii, scarcely separable, indeed not separable, except 

 by mere technicalities. Lastrea foenisecii, however, mixed up with 

 the rest by some botanists, appears to me perfectly distinct, and is 

 readily known by its truly deltoid outline, its concave pinnules, its 

 lacerated lance-shaped scales, and perhaps even more readily when 

 dried, by its powerful fragrance, like that of new hay. Then follows 

 L. dilatata, of which there are many forms or varieties, several having 

 been exalted into species, different, though scarcely separable, but all 

 distinguishable by their entire, lance-shaped scales, and gland-fringed 

 indusia. And then follow the ferns under consideration, united by 

 their ovate, pallid scales, and their entire indusia, and not more than 

 separable as varieties by the form and mode of division of their fronds. 

 For this latter " group " (as no doubt it may be called in some quar- 

 ters) it seems best to retain the name cristata, partly in order to avoid 

 the confusion which has resulted from the interchange of the names 

 spinulosa and spinosa, but chiefly because the plant known as cris- 

 tata, though not the most common, is the most distinct form, and 

 bears a Linnsean antiquity, having been most probably used by Lin- 

 naeus himself in the very sense which it is now again proposed to 

 adopt ; for in truth Linnaeus has been charged with " confounding " 

 under one name the two extremes of the short series I now propose 

 to unite under the name he employed. 



Thomas Moore. 

 Chelsea, August, 1852. ^ 



Observations on (Enanthe JluviatiliSj Coleman. 

 By E. G. Varenne, Esq. 



In the * British Flora,' ed. 6, p. 168, there occurs the following 

 remark, under the head of CEnanthe fluviatilis, Colem. : — " It would 

 appear too that the flowering stems are unlike those which bear the 

 above described submersed leaves." From this observation one is 

 led to imagine that a doubt exists in the minds of the writers as to 

 whether the submersed leaves and the flowering shoots grow from one 

 VOL. IV. 4 R 



