244 INIr. C. C. Babington on some species of Epilobium. 



he seems to have afterwards suspected that he was in error, for 

 in the ' Fl. excurs/ he leaves that synonym out, and describes 

 another plant as E. virgatum, which he supposes to be markedly 

 distinguished from E. teti-agonum and E. obscuruin by having a 

 stigma that ultimately becomes quadrifid. Hartmann, as 

 quoted by Koch, expressly states of £. virrjatum, " stigma semper 

 integrum, nunc inordinate 2-4-fiduui, nunquam vero cruciatum 

 vel regulariter quadrifidum/^ Fries says in the ' Fl. Hall.,' 

 " stigmate indiviso,'' in the ' Novitise ' " stigmate demum qua- 

 dritido," in the ' Summa ' " stigmatibus in clavam coalitis." 

 Petermann (Fl. Lipsise, 280) describes E. ohscurunt, which re- 

 sembles the plant of this paper, as the Chamanerion uhscurum of 

 Schreber, but adds, " neque vero sec. herbar.'' E,eichenbach 

 makes a similar remark, but neither author tells us what the 

 plant of the Herbarium really is. The extract from Schreber's 

 description given by lleichenbach (Icouog. ii. 89, and Fl. excur. 

 635), for I have not succeeded in obtaining access to the original 

 work, will apply tolerably well to the plant now called E. oh- 

 scurum. Roth's works (Tentamen Fl. Germ. ii. 438, and Enum. 

 Plant, i. sec. 2. p. 152) contain descriptions of E, obscurum 

 agreeing with that of Petermann, and with the plant pointed out 

 to me by Mr. Borrer and already described in this paper. Roth 

 remai'ks of it, '^ planta ab E. tetragono diversissima est" (En.), 

 and '^ planta per plures annos in horto .... excepta proceritate 

 non mutavit habitum" (Fl.). 



Sonder describes a plant as E. virgatum (Fl. Hamb. 217), of 

 which he says " stolonibus elongatis, caule ex ascendente basi 

 stricto," and quotes to it the specimen erroneously published by 

 Fries (Herb. Norm. ii. 4G) as E. virgatum, and now referred by 

 Grisebach to E. Lamyi (F. Schultz). Sonder quotes E. Laiityi 

 as being the same as his E. virgatum ; but if his plant has really 

 the elongated stoles and is chordorhizal, as he appears to intimate 

 in the v»ords quoted above, then it cannot be the E. Lamyi of 

 F. Schultz, which that botanist states to have " radice perpen- 

 diculare," and also to possess " ad caulis basin foliorum rosulam 

 1 (rarius 2) proferente, stolonibus nuilis." I am indebted to 

 my valued friend and correspondent Mr. R. Lenormaud of Vire 

 for two specimens of the E. Lamyi (F. Schultz), marked as 

 authentic, gathered in La Vendee. They present so much the 

 appearance of E. lanceolatwn, that we cease to wonder that Koch 

 referred imperfect specimens of the plant to that species. They 

 do not branch in their lower half, do not creep, have no stoles 

 nor rosettes, have narrowly lanceolate rather strongly denticulate 

 leaves with a wcdge-shaj)ed base on one of the specimens, and 

 a broad base which is rather narrower than the middle of the 

 leaf on the other. The plant is apparently very scarce, and 



