844 



in my herbarium ; and I have also had the opportunity of examining 

 a more perfect authenticated example, in the possession of that gen- 

 tleman. Upon comparing them with a series of H. murorum, Fr.y 

 collected in Teesdale, and in this neighbourhood, I can have little 

 hesitation in referring them to that species, as identical in all essen- 

 tial characteristics. The specimens of H, nudicaule, from the large 

 size and thinness of their leaves, have evidently grown in a very 

 shady place, and belong to the extreme form of var. sylvaiicum, Fr. 

 (which is the most usual condition of H. murorum in this country) ; 

 but some undoubted specimens of the latter resemble it closely in 

 these respects. 



" But, whilst, if we take for granted that this is a correct view of 

 the case, and that H. murorum of Fries is the true plant of Linnaeus, 

 the use of the name nudicaule must be discontinued, in accordance 

 with the recognized law of priority, it is worthy of comment that the 

 opinion of its proposer, that the plant thus designated is specifically 

 distinct from H. caesium (the H. murorum of 'English Botany,' and 

 wholly or principally of all British authors previous to 1850), has 

 since received the sanction, and has been endorsed by the very high 

 authority, of Fries and Babington ; though it is most likely that Ed- 

 mondston's idea of his species was less comprehensive than that of 

 those authors, and that he would not have considered as belonging 

 to it various forms included under H. murorum by Fries ; and we may 

 also remark that the name of nudicaule, though seldom applicable 

 without qualification, indicates one of the leading distinctions in habit 

 between that species and H. caesium, Fr^ 



Hieracium strictum, Fr., in England. 



" Amongst a series of Hieracia collected by my friend, John W. 

 Watson, in a tour through Wensleydale, during the autumn, are seve- 

 ral specimens of this much misunderstood species, from the neigh- 

 bourhood of Bolton Castle, on the north bank of the Ure. 



" From the remarks of Messrs. Borrer and Watson in the Supple- 

 ment to the ' Cybele Britannica ' (iii. 359), it would appear that this 

 species was really known to Smith, and included under his idea of 

 H. denticulatum ; but his descriptions would also apply to some of 

 the forms of H. prenanthoides, as defined by later British authors, 

 one of which (var. paucifolium, Fr.) is figured in ' English Botany ' 

 (2235), under the name of denticulatum. Such being the case, surely 

 it is better to avoid confusion by discarding that name, as loose and 

 uncertain in its application, and using in its place that proposed by 



