28 ENGLISH BOTANY. 



" 3. That Dillenius believed one of them, described as with ' foliis 

 dissectis,' to be a distinct species. 



" 4. That this species, or supposed species, was ' found by or known 

 to Ray, Lawson, Doody, "Willughby, and the herbwomen.' " (Newman, 

 1 Phyt.' 1854, p. 30.) 



No one can doubt that Mr. Newman is right in his deductions, 

 but I do not see how they prove Ray's plant to be B. rutaceum. 

 There is no mention of the midrib to the pinnae, nor of their being 

 pinnatifid : and the mere mention of lunules in connection with the 

 pinnae would seem to exclude the idea of B. rutaceum, in which the 

 pinnae have no lunate appearance whatever. Again, B. rutaceum is 

 ordinarily a smaller plant than B. Lunaria. I am inclined to add 

 a fifth deduction to those of Mr. Newman, viz. : 



5th. That this species or supposed species is B. Lunaria, ft. incisum, 

 M'tlde, which I have mentioned in its proper place. 



There still remains a passage in Smith's 'English Flora.' After 

 describing the ordinary form of B. Lunaria, he adds the following 

 paragraph : — 



" (3 has a branched stalk, bearing several leaves and compound 

 spikes alternately disposed, y is a very slight variety, with more 

 jagged leaflets than ordinary. S has pinnatifid leaflets and a more 

 spreading habit. All these varieties, and perhaps others, are found 

 occasionally intermixed here and there with the plant in its proper or 

 common form ; but never, as far as I could learn, so numerously 

 distinct as to have the appearance of a different species." (Sm. 

 'Engl. Fl.' vol. iv. p. 329.) 



In this paragraph ft is the monstrous form termed tripartitum 

 by Mr. Moore ; y is the plant I have before mentioned as B. Lunaria, 

 j3. incisum ; and 8 is probably the true B. rutaceum. Smith appears, 

 if not to have seen, at least to have heard of, the occasional occur- 

 rence of all these forms ; and as B. rutaceum is a plant likely to 

 occur in Britain, and liable to be overlooked, it is just possible 

 that it may really be a native. 



BOTRYCHIUM LANCEOLATUM. Angstrom. 

 B. rutaceum, Newm. in part, Hist. Brit. Ferns, ed. iii. pp. 320-324. 



Mr. Newman writes of a Botrychium, which he supposes to be 

 B. rutaceum, " Mr. Cruickshank says in a note : ' I found it on the 

 Sands of Barry, near Dundee, in August, 1830. I observed but 



h 



