316 BOTANICAL NOTES, NOTICES, AND QUERIES. [OctobeV, 



There is no doubt about the specific distinctness of the two plants, for 

 they differ in altitude of stem, denticulation of leaflets, length of flowering 

 cluster, colour of flowers, and above all in the form of the legume and in 

 the number of the seeds. 



The species now called M. arvensis is a taller plant than M. officinalis, 

 not quite so bushy, or having the branches less divergent ; also the den- 

 ticulations, or teeth, are longer and broader in M. arvensis than in M. offici- 

 nalis. The spike, or cluster, is very much longer and laxer in the former 

 than in the latter, and the legume is not hairy, but blunt, and many- 

 seeded (?) in M. arvensis : this organ is elliptical, tapering, and two-seeded 

 in M. officinalis. 



Melilotns ffe7-manica of Jjohel (see ' Observationes,' p. 501) appears to be 

 what is now called 3f. arvensis ; and M. italica of the same author, figured 

 in the same page, is more like the figure in * Engbsh Botany ' than the 

 other on the right-hand side of the page. Grerard and Parkinson's figures 

 are probably from the same original as Lobel's. 



Professor Martyn's figure in ' Flora Rustica ' has more resemblance to 

 M. arvensis of modern botany than to M. officinalis. 



In Gerard's time, the latter was so plentiful in Essex that it was be- 

 come a serious nuisance. " There cannot be a worse weed," wrote Pro- 

 fessor Martyn, 1792, "among bread-corn, for a few of the seeds ground 

 with it spoil the flour by communicating their peculiarly strong taste" 

 (vol. ii. p. 72). 



The figure of ilf. officinalis, 1340, in 'English Botany,' although good 

 enough so far as it goes, is not quite satisfactory, being from an immature 

 example ; and consequently the legume and seeds are not represented. 

 The figure in the Supplement is better, having the fruit represented ; not- 

 withstanding this, we are not quite satisfied that what is called M. arvensis 

 is the plant which has been recently discovered ; but, on the contrary, our 

 impression is that in the south of England M. arvensis has been generally 

 collected, and believed to be 31. officinalis ; and this is the belief of other 

 collectors who have been sounded on this subject. 



It is surmised that nearly all the examples of the yellow Melilot now 

 existing in the various herbaria of British plants collected during the 

 present and preceding centuries, are what is now called M. arvensis. To 

 clear up this question, it is particularly requested that botanists will transmit 

 loose, spare specimens of their yellow Melilots either to A. I., 38, Upper 

 Manor Street, Chelsea, or to 45, Frith Street, Soho, London. It would 

 be desirable to have the localities, and the time of their collection, on a 

 ticket accompanying each specimen. 



We are pretty certain that M. officinalis appeared only recently, within 

 ten or twelve years, in Surrey or near London. 31. arvensis, on the other 

 hand, has been familiar to all the older botanists for many years. 



Also all the figures in the old herbals agree better with M. arvensis 

 than with 31. officinalis ; and in some modern works, for example in 

 ' John's Flowers of the Field,' the figure agrees better with At. arvensis 

 than with its relative. 



Our worthy friend and correspondent W. Ashley, of Sheffield, is re- 

 quested, when quite convenient, to send us the stations for Erodium mari- 

 timnm and E. rnoschatum in Wales, and those for AcMllea decolorans, 

 Geranium pyrenaicum, and Campanula rapuncnloid^is iu Yorkshire. 



