Mr. C. C. Babington on some species q/Epilobinni. 241 



Stem upright fioiii the root, usually branched from the base, 

 with 2-4 raised deeurreut lines from the edges of the; leaves. 

 Rosettes usually very nearly sessile, and although they are some- 

 times shortly stalked when the ])lant is Hooded, they do not even 

 then resembh) the stoles of /s. ohscuruin. Seeds rounded at both 

 ends, but with a recurved point at the base; that is, if the front 

 of the seed is observed, the base appears to be blunt, but if a 

 lateral view is taken, the small point directed backwards is seen. 

 The intermediate leaves appear to be always decurrent by their 

 liml), as are often many of the others ; they do not narrow much 

 until near to their upper end; the little teeth are near together, 

 conspicuous, and often have incurved callous points. The lower 

 leaves are more nearly lanceolate, the lowest obovate. 



Dr. Grisebach differs from all other botanists by thinking 

 that this is not the typical plant of Linnaeus, and accordingly 

 changes its name to E. adnotum, and calls the E. Lamyi (F. 

 Sehultz) the E. tetrcnjonum (Linn.). Dr. Schultz thinks that 

 Grisebach is in ernu', and restores the Linn?ean name to the 

 plant that has usually been so called. In this I quite agree 

 with him. Nevertheless there are difficulties attending the de- 

 termination of the Linnrcan plant that call for a few remarks. 

 It is highly probable that Linnaeus included the E. obscurum 

 under the name of E. tetragonum. In the first edition of the 

 ' Sp. Fl.^ (i. 348) he gives the character as follows : — 



" E. foliis lanceolato-linearibus denticulatis : imis oppositis, caule 

 tetragono." 



In the second and later editions of the same work it is 



" E. foliis lanceolatis denticulatis : imis oppositis, caule tetra- 

 gono ;" 



and the remark is added, 



" Summitas, adhuc tenella, nutans." 



Our E. tetragonum is very much better described by the former 

 than the latter of these detinitions, and the additional observa- 

 tion shows that Linnaeus had, when preparing the second edition 

 for the press, fallen into some confusion, for it need scarcely be 

 remarked, that neither E. tetragonum, nor E. obscurum, nor E. 

 Lamyi has a nodding summit. It is a curious fact, that Linnreus 

 does not include E. tetragonum in his ' Fl. Suecica,' although it 

 appears not to be a rare plant in Sweden. May we not thence 

 conclude that he had little acquaintance with the plant, and thus 

 account for his altering the character for the worse ? This is 

 rendered more probable when it is found that the figure quoted 

 by him from Tabernaemontanus (Icon. p. 854) does not represent 

 E. tetragonum, nor agree with the Linnaean description : what it 



Ann. i^ Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 2. Vol. xvii. 16 



