#22 THE LIFE AND WORK OF GEORGE DON. 
the Hierochloe at Thurso, and although I was taken by Mr. 
Lindsay, who knew the exact locality, we could not me a 
lower portion of the glen in the middle of May, where there is 
great probability of his search being rewarded with success. 
Triticum cristatum, Schred. 
“Discovered [by Mr. Don] on steep banks and rocks by the 
seaside, between Arbroath and Montrose, flowering very 
sparingly.” Smith, Eng. Bot., t. 2267. 
“The spikelets, in one of the Linnean specimens, are 
exuemey. hairy; in another, like Mr. Don’s, smooth.” Sm., 
Engh FL, 1, porSs....See also Batu FI, Forfar., p. 206. 
“A ie oe peculiar to the east of Europe and Asia, 
and which could not have been indigenous.” Hooker 
and Arua, Brit. FL, Ed. vi., p. 556. 
“PTO: 15.~ FGF far: G. Don. Lunan Bay, Arbroath. 
Ambiguity.” Cyb. Brit., iii., p. 237. “Specimens from Don are 
in herbaria.” Watsow: Comp. Cyb. Brit., p. 597- 
“Said by George Don to have been found by himself 
between Arbroath and Montrose, and in the ‘Cybele Britannica’ 
Mr. H. C. Watson states that in a letter from Sir W. C. 
Trevelyan, dated Aug. 19, 1839, he remarks that 7. cristatum 
was then ‘abundant in Lunan Bay, near Arbroath’; but in 
1848 Mr. Gardner [Gardiner] asserted in his ‘Flora of Forfar- 
shire’ that Don ‘alone has found it.’” Syme, Eng. Bot., xi, 
202 
“One ae vag S reputed discoveries.” Hooker, Student’s FI. 
(1870), p 
In see own herbarium are specimens labelled “On dry 
banks between Arbroath and Montrose, but rare.” One of them 
misnamed “var.” but it appears to be a cultivated form of the 
other. I have no doubt that Don found it as he describes, but 
as an introduced plant. aa occurrence there is not so remark- 
that of th rmwood, Artemisia 
Stelleriana, which 1 ee at Lunan Bay recently. 
Because Gardiner says that “Don alone has found it,” it 
proves neither that Don did not find it nor tee no one else 
ha though Trevelyan wrote to Watson (who adopts 
his locality in the vip Sire there is no evidence that he 
was a correspondent of Gardiner’s, indeed we may assume 
that Gardiner knew setitete the grass nor Trevelyan’s statement 
about it. 
