Mr. C. C. Babington on British species of Plumbaginacese. 439 
_ point and a white or brownish membranous margin ; inner twice 
or three times as long, white and membranous at the sides and 
blunt or emarginate or split summit. Leaves blunt with a mucro 
and wavy at the edges, or acute and mucronate and scarcely at 
all wavy. 
Muddy salt marshes on the English coasts. Is it found in 
Scotland or Ireland ? 
2. S. Bahusiensis (Fries) ; foliis oblongo-lanceolatis mucronatis uni- 
nerviis venis inconspicuis in petiolum decurrentibus, scapo sub- 
angulato ramosissimo paniculato, spiculis 1-3-floris secundis di- 
stantibus in spicas arrectas vel incurvatas laze dispositis, calycis 
limbo propter denticulos minutos inter lobos majores denticulatos 
acutos sitos subdecemlobo, bractea exteriori parva dorso herbaceo 
subexcurrente. 
S. Bahusiensis, Fries, ‘‘ Herb. Normale, iii. 18 ;’’ Summa, 200 ; De- 
Cand. Prod. xii. 644. ; 
S. Limonium, 2. Bahusiensis, Fries, Nov. Fil. Suec. Mant. i. 10; 
Mant. ii. 17 (excl. syn.). 
S. rariflora, Drej. Fl. Hafn. 121; Reich. Fl. exsic. 2200; Eng. Bot. 
Suppl. t. 2917. 
_ Seape nearly always branching from near its base, not at all 
corymbose, and although much divided below, the ultimate sub- 
divisions (or spikes) are long and simple. Spikelets often only 
1-flowered, quite distinct, not imbricated. Outer bract broad, 
cuspidate or acute, with a slight mucro and a white membranous 
margin usually deeply tinged at its base with pink ; inner twice 
as long, very blunt. Leaves usually blunt with a mucro from, 
or from just beneath, the extremity, nearly even at the edges. 
Inhabiting less muddy places than S. Limonium, and found 
throughout the United Kingdom. 
A few observations upon the name of this plant are necessary. 
Boissier has adopted that employed here, owing probably to Fries’s 
observation in his ‘Summa Plant. Scand.’ (200) : “e prioritatis 
lege hzec species S. Bahusiensis, sub quo nomine sex annos ante 
Dreyerum descripsi et in H. N. distribui, dicenda est.” Ata 
first view this would seem most conclusive, but on a more careful 
examination it appears that the name was given in the ‘ Mantissa 
altera* (anno 1839) to the plant as a species having been used 
for the sake of distinction, but apparently not specifically, in the 
‘Mant. prima’ (1832). As unfortunately I am not in possession 
of the ‘ Herb. Normale,’ iii., I do not know if the plant was there 
considered as a species or variety (although from the remark 
already quoted probably as the former), nor the date of its pub- 
lication. Drejer published his ‘ Flora Hafn.’ in 1838, and has 
therefore the priority if the second ‘ Mantissa’ is the origin of 
the name S. Bahusiensis used specifically ; but if it was so used 
