312 Mr. C. C. Babington on some species of Epilobimn. 



* Flore de France.' He observes, " It'E. alpinum (Fries, Nov. 

 Mant. ii. 20) est, sans aucun doute, une espece distincte de celle 

 de France et de Suisse. Car la plante de Fries .... porte h la 

 base de ses tiges, au lieu de stolons filiformes, des rosettes sessiles 

 de feuilles fasciculees, qu'il compare aux rosettes de VE. tetra- 

 gonum." (Fl. de Fr. i. 578.) It is a cause of surprise to me 

 that, knowing so much, he did not inquire further into the 

 subject, but has left the French plant in possession of the name 

 of E. alpinum, which belongs to that of Lapland. It was the 

 intention of Linnseus to include under that name the plant of the 

 Alps ; but it is clear, from his quoting Scheuchzer's work with 

 doubt, that he was not quite satisfied of their identity. In his 

 later wi-itings he has removed the mark of doubt fi-om that 

 reference, and added other synonyms belonging to the alpine 

 plant and also to E. alsinifolium. The E. alpinum therefore of 

 the ' Species Plantarum^ included three plants : namely (1) E. 

 alpinum of Fries, which must be accepted as the type of the Lin- 

 nsean species ; (2) E. alsinifolium of Villars ; and (3) E. ana- 

 gallidifolium of Lamarck, which is the E. alpinum of Godron. 



Botanists appear to be now pretty unanimous in distinguishing 

 Nos. 1 and 2, but seem to have known nothing concerning the 

 E. alpinum of France and the Alps until Godron published the 

 remark that has just been quoted. Had not that accurate and 

 observant botanist directed attention to the subject, it is pro- 

 bable that we might long have continued to be ignorant of the 

 fact that the E. alpinum of the north differs materially from 

 that of the south of Europe. It will have been seen from the 

 quotation from the ' Flore de France,' that the chief difference 

 between them is, according to Godron, to be found in the pi'e- 

 sence or absence of stoles or rosettes. If such a difference of 

 habit really exists, it is probable that botanists will not see much 

 reason for refusing to adopt Dr. Godron's opinion. That this 

 southern plant, if distinguished, ought to bear the name given 

 to it by Lamarck cannot admit of question ; for there seems to 

 be no reason for doubting that he had it in view when he pub- 

 lished the description and figure of his E. anagallidifolium. He 

 states that it is closely allied to the E. alpinum of Linnseus, but 

 doubts their identity*. 



After stating what I believe to be the characters of the three 

 plants, a few observations will be made upon them. 



E. anagallidifoUum (Lam.) ; joints of the barren stems all long 

 with small obovate leaves, flowering stem erect from a long rooting 



* In the paper already noticed, Dr. Grisebach has arrived at conclusions 

 concerning the allies of E. alpinum similar to those independently formed 

 by me, and Dr. Schultz appears to adopt them in his review of it. 



