38G Mr. C. C. Babington on the Batracldan Ranunculi. 



presented to the reader^ I have been led, or rather driven to the 

 conclusion that the forms described below are species, by having 

 had most of them under my observation in a growing state for 

 several years, and finding them to continue constant in their 

 characters when raised from seed under varying circumstances 

 through successive generations : also, by remarking that they 

 not only possess permanent definable distinctions, but present 

 such differences at first sight as to enable the practised eye to 

 distinguish them easily. Surely, in such a case, the minuteness 

 or obscurity of the structure upon which the technical character 

 is founded can be no just argument against the claims of the 

 plants to be considered as entitled to specific rank. Neither can 

 we accept as conclusive against them the fact that some eminent 

 botanist, such as Smith (Eng. Flora, iii. 55), has combined them 

 under two names; or, Seringe "long ago recorded his decided 

 opinion, that all were mere varieties of one species." Neither 

 Seringe (Melanges Botaniques, ii. 8 & 49) nor Schlechtendal 

 (Animadv. Bot. in Ban. 8), who is also used as an authority by 

 those who persuade themselves that all these plants form only one 

 species, appears to have had any knowledge of the characters that 

 are now employed in this group of plants ; and I think that no 

 botanist of the present day lays stress upon the hairiness or 

 smoothness of the plant or its capsules ; neither would plants be 

 considered as distinct solely on account of the presence or absence 

 of the broad floating leaves. It is nearly certain that several of 

 the species (as I consider them) that are to be described pre- 

 sently (viz. R. heterophyllus, R. Baudotii, R. floribundus) would 

 each afford a series of forms, extending from a state in which 

 there are no capillarly- divided leaves to one consisting solely of 

 them, similar to that recorded by Schlechtendal under the name 

 of R. aquatilis. The existence of such series assuredly rather 

 tends to prove that there are several species of Batracldan 

 Ranunculi than that they are all of one species. Doubtless it 

 requires a considerable familiarity with the plants to enable a 

 person to refer all these forms to their proper species, and mis- 

 takes are very frequently made in attempting to do so. Also 

 innumerable errors and difficulties arise when names are required 

 to be given to scraps, such as are often collected and preserved 

 even by good botanists. 



We are told that a series of specimens from all parts of the 

 world proves that there is only one species of Batrachian Ranun- 

 culus. Doubtless it would be easy to form a series apparently 

 justifying such an opinion, but our success in so doing does not 

 seem necessary to prove the non-existence of several species ; 

 for it may, and I believe has, happened in many such cases that 



