APPENDIX A.—REPUTED DISCOVERIES. 113 
conceive a mistake between plants so very dissimilar.” 
Watson, Cyb. Brit. ii., p. 110. fe alto SATB ae Brit., P. 533- 
Britain which rest on no safer authorit are admitted sibs as 
genuine natives (ex. gr. Potentilla tridentata). 1 do not, how- 
ever, believe this to be a British species.” Watson, CyB Brit., 
lii., P. 459 
“Said by Mr. G. Don to have been found in Forfarshire ; but 
it has been. found by no one else.” Syme, Eng. Bot., v., p. "o17 
‘“‘One of Don’s reputed discoveries.” Hooker, Student's FL 
(1870), Pp: 477- 
There is a specimen in Miss Palmer’s collection labelled 
“Moist — on aah loys mountains, G. Don 
situations, ave been thou y Don have been 
different from the lowland Coltsfoo t, and ‘age re in his garden 
may have afterwards been confus ed w h Homogvue alpina, 
eee I suspect labelling in his peer was not a strong point, 
memory being probably in most aoe relied on, and this 
eventually was sure to lead to erro 
Erigeron uniflorus, Z. 
“ Gathered on Ben phi! as well as on rocks by the river 
Almond, near Lindoch eth och], seven oon from Perth, b 
Mr. G. Don, who justly distinguished this ne from 
alpinum.” Smith, Eng. Bot., - sates (1812). See also Smith, 
Trans. Linn. Soc., x., p. 346 (x 
“Province 15. Perthshire; G. Don in Eng. Fl. Error. A 
misnomer of £. alpinus single-headed.” c f 24. atson, Comp. Cyb. 
Brit., p. 533. 
ae sent it 2 Sim asa form or new species, and it was 
Smith, not Don, who identified it with the Z. uniflorus. In the 
. English Flora i Smith says, “Some have very unadvisedly 
confounded £. eg oie in a luxuriant state, with our common 
- acris ar approach of these two, and of many 
foreign species to eats peli though certainly distinct, may 
teach us caution with regard to E. uniflorus,” but as it is seen 
it did not. 
[Notes, R.B.G., Edin., No. XIII., r904.] id 
