(14) DAVID PRAI.N. GORYDALIS PERSIGA CHAM. ET SCHLECHT. 175 



Saharanpur and St. Petersburg, I was led to suspect Ihat some error had 

 crept inlo our conceplion of Conjdalis persica owing lo my fmding Iwo 

 very dislincl pkiiUs in the St. Petersburg collection to which this name 

 had been attached. One of thèse agreed very well wilh the description of 

 C. persica given by M. Boissier, the other was, as the spécimens themselves 

 showed, the plant described as C. persica by D'' Regel. Neither the one 

 nor the other accorded with the description given by Chamisso and 

 Schlechtendal of the flower of the genuine C. persica; finding that, in 

 this respect at least, the plant which suited the original description best is 

 the species described by M. Boissier as C. Griffithii, 1 ventured in 1896 

 to Ireat C. Grifßthii and C. persica as the sarne Ihing. I was not, however, 

 satisfied that my solution of thedifficulty had anythingmore to commend 

 it than those which had been advanced in turn by M. Boissier and D^ 

 Regel. Moreover. though I hâve seen authentic examples of C. persica 

 Regel. I had seen no spécimen of 6'. persica as understood by M. Boissier, 

 and had of course seen no spécimen of the true C. persica of Chamisso 

 and Schlechtendal. 



Having made known my difficulty to M. Autran, Curator of the Boissier 

 Herbarium. Ihe material detailed below was placed at my disposai Ihrough 

 the kindriess of M. Barbey : 



1) a complète example of Szovitz, n« 113, from Persia, province Ader- 

 bidjan, near Deliman; 



2) a single flower, without lower lip, from a second example of 

 Szovitz, n" 113; 



3) Ihree Howers of another spécimen named C. persica in the Boissier 

 Herbarium, which forms the type of C. rutœfolia Boiss. et Buhse, non 

 !)(].. a [)iaiit rediiced in lh(i Flora Orieutiilis to C. prrsica. 



4) a pl.inl collected by Pichler at Kaswiii. iiauicd (L persica by i\l, 

 Boissier after the [jublicalioii of the first volume of the Flora Orieiilnlis. 



The spécimens numbered 1 and 4 are consi)eci(ic and are moreover 

 œnspecific wilh Ihe St. F'elersburg plant that isiuchided under G. persica 

 which does not agi'ee with tin- pliiil described aiid IIhiiicmI ;is II. persica 

 by Regel. The [)lant represeiited by "i is not however the sanu! as iJi.it 

 rnimhereil 1 though it bcars the sauie distrihution numher (Sz()\ilz 

 II" !1;>J .'irid isiti rcajily coiisiiccinc willi ;i |il;iiil rnmi M' Hryl.iii (Aiichcr- 

 Kloy. Il" Wi\, which M. Boissicîr lias ii.iincd il. riiLrfolia but which is in 

 Ulis pa|jer ii.immmI (1. moilrsUi. l'inally th(! plant ninnbfMcd 3 is not the 

 }*am«asany of llic ollicr> but is coiispecilic. wilh Ihe plani llial l)'- licgel 

 considered lo Im- (]. prislra. M. lîois.sicr's cilaliiuis ;ii'(î : a) lo (Iniclin's 



