154 BALFOUR—NEW SPECIES OF PRIMULA. 
I find that Mr. Craib has also queried in Kew Herbarium the 
identification of the Sikkim and the Nepal plants. 
I have had opportunity of examining four sheets of Wallich’s 
species—one in the Kew Herbarium and three in the Calcutta 
Herbarium—and I come to the same conclusion as Sir Joseph 
Hooker and Mr. Craib. I am indeed not convinced that all 
the Sandakphu and Singaleelah plants are of one species, 
and the suggestion of this difference amongst them, and that 
there may be two species, or at least microforms, is based not 
only upon examination of herbarium material but also upon 
recollection of cultivated plants. We used to grow at Edin- 
burgh a plant under the name of P. rotundifolia (raised from 
Calcutta seed) of which IT have the following note :—leaves 
small, sulphur-mealy below, with delicate petioles, a scape bear- 
ing a single umbel of pink flowers with short bracts and longer 
pedicels, the corolla tube was funnel-shaped, with the tips of the 
anthers in the short-styled flowers close up to the annulus though 
not exserted, and the style itself nearly twice as long as the calyx. 
I do not recollect a great increase of leaf development after 
flowering and as the fruits matured. Our plant of to-day under 
the name of P. rotundifolia—it came to us from Mr. Cave at 
Darjeeling—is a much more robust one, with leaves having 
stout petioles and enlarging to twice the flowering size during 
fruiting ; the single flower umbel is often subtended by a whorl 
of flowers, the flowers themselves are subtended by bracts longer 
than or as long as the pedicels, and have a narrow cylindric tube 
to their corolla, and the tips of the stamens in the short-styled 
plant are a little below the mouth of the throat, the short style 
being hardly longer than the calyx. As cultivated plants the 
two are very different. I have not dried specimens of the two 
plants to stimulate recollection. They were too precious to 
sacrifice for the herbarium, and now we seem to have lost the 
old plant. Of it I have only a couple of flowers preserved in 
spirit for comparison. Therefore my saying about it is some- 
what indefinite and would not have beenintroduced here but that 
I think the dried specimens in herbaria seem to support and are 
not hostile to the view that there are two distinct plants, and I 
would like to ask collectors to observe carefully the plants in their 
native habitat. Here I am contenting myself (along with Mr. 
Smith) with demarking under the name P. cardiophylla, Balf. 
fil. et W. W. Sm. from Wallich’s P. rotundifolia the plant of 
which Sir Joseph Hooker had doubts and with which may be 
associated specimens of other collectors as cited above. This is 
the plant we have now growing at Edinburgh, and no longer to 
be called P. rotundifolia, Wall. 
Of specimens hitherto called P. rotundifolia, Wall. which are 
