4. CRUCIFER^. 159 



Colonist. Agrestal. I feel myself utterly at a loss in 

 what manner to indicate the distribution of this species 

 and B. Napus ; behoving them to be frequently mistaken, 

 one for the other, and confused also with stragglers of the 

 cultivated tumep, B. rapa, in which the root has not en- 

 larged. Probably I am myself no exception in this con- 

 fusion of the three (if they be tioily three) species. My 

 herbarium includes few examples. Those collected by 

 my own hand are from North Devon, SuiTey and Mid- 

 dlesex, and perhaps Castletown, m Braemar. I am imable 

 to distinguish these from a Forfarshii^e example, labelled 

 "B. campestris," by the late Mr. R. Maughan, or from 

 a leafless branch in froiit, labelled " B. campestris — 

 Inch Gan-ie," by Mr. W. Brand. But as none of 

 my specunens have root-leaves remaining, and they ai"e 

 otherwise in different stages of growth, no veiy exact com- 

 parison can be made among them. On mentioning my 

 difficulty about the Brassicae to Dr. Bromfield, he wi'ote, 

 " I am as much at a loss as you are to distinguish these 

 species, especially the two last ;" namely, campestris and 

 Napus. Mr. Babington unites Rapa and campestris ; and 

 while still keeping Napus apart as a species, he observes 

 of it that " it is difficult to find any chai'acter by which to 

 distinguish this plant from the preceding." In the Flora 

 of Northmnberland and Durham, Mr. Winch remarks of 

 B. campestris, "this plant, so common by the Thames, 

 does not appear to be truly a native of Northumberland or 

 Durham." In general, our botanists admit it as an un- 

 questioned native. If I am correct in refening to campes- 

 tris the starvling examples seen near Castletown, in a 

 barley-field, the range of temperature might be canied 

 three or foiu- degrees lower, for a habitat of 350 yards in 

 elevation, far inland, about the line of 57°. But there can 

 be httle doubt that the seeds of those examples, or of their 



