82 1 RANUNCULACEiE. 



noticed yeai's before ; there being a very fine example of 

 the plant in the herbarium of Sir W. J. Hooker, to whom it 

 came among the Astmian plants of Dmieu, labelled with a 

 double mark of doubt " Ranunculus hederaceus ? ? " (See 

 Annals, xvi, 141 ; Phytol. ii. 467 and 497.) 



Ranunculus alpestris, Linn. 



Ai-ea [15]. 



Incognita. It is difficult to decide under what category 

 of citizensliip or civil claim tliis Alpine Ranunculus ought 

 to be placed. The existence of a specimen in the Smithian 

 herbarium, with a memorandum that it was collected in 

 Forfarshii'e, by Mr. George Don, seems very good evidence 

 in favom- of its nati^dty ; and yet no other botanist, among 

 the many who have searched the mountains of that county, 

 has ever detected an example of this species there. More- 

 over, its geogi'aphic distribution othenvise would not much 

 incline us to expect the species in Scotland ; since it is not 

 found in Scandinaiia, nor any of the arctic lands. At the 

 time when Mr. Don was a collector, it was not the custom 

 with botanists to be veiy particulai- in recording the locali- 

 ties and distribution of plants ; and they might not always 

 be sufficiently carefiil in keeping British and foreign, or 

 wild and garden examples of the same species, apart fi'om 

 each other. I possess ample proof, that a noted botanist 

 of the Smithian school and age, and of good integrity, dis- 

 tributed garden-groAvn examples labelled fi-om wild stations. 

 In the case alluded to, there was no intentional deception; 

 but if, ia this practice, he had chanced to send Smith a 

 wi'ong (not British) species, instead of the one seen in the 

 wild station, the author of the English Flora would pro- 

 bably have enrolled it among our natives. And the same 



