176 BULLETIN DE l'hERBIER BOISSIER. (15) 



plant; b) to Szovitz' plant and c) lo the plant coUected by Buhse. Against 

 Gmelin's galhering, which is Hb. Willd. 12916 and is therefore the basis 

 of C. persica Cham, et Schlecht., there is no mark of affirmation, indica- 

 ting therefore that M. Boissier had not seen it. Finding this to be the 

 case and learning moreover that, apart from the original plant, whatever 

 it might be, C. persicaBoiss. includes three quite différent plants, I now 

 lurned for help to D'" Urban of Berlin whom I begged to compare, on my 

 behalf, the Darwas plant which is C. persica Regel and the Deliman plant 

 which is C. persica Boiss. with the Hb. Willd. plant (m 12916) which is 

 C. persica Cham, at Schlecht. I did not send on example of the Darwas 

 plant to Prof. Urbuan, but of the Deliman plant I sent a single flower. 

 The results of this comparison cannot be better stated than they have 

 been by Professor Urban himself in the following reply to my letter : 



« With great pleasui'e I give you my observations on the two Corydalis 

 « species. 



«The Corydalis persica Boiss., Deliman leg. Szovitz, which we have 

 « not in our herbarium is. as the sent flower shows, cerlainly not C. per- 

 ^sica Gh.! et Schlecht, in Herb. Willd., n« 12916. 



« The C. persica Regel, Darwas leg. Regel, which is also in our herba- 

 « rium, does not seem the same plant as the one of Chamisso and Schlech- 

 « tendal, which has the same habitus but the flowers are much smaller, 

 « the spur shorler. 



« I send you a little drawing of the type and one of the four flowers 

 « (the best) which I beg your to return. » 



An examination of this drawing and flower showed that none of the three 

 plants included in C. persica Boiss. agree with the genuine C. persica. 

 This is particulary true of the one that was taken for C. persica by Regel. 



A curions circumstance in connection with C. persica is the facl that 

 it has never been gathered since Gmelin's time; at all events it is not 

 présent in the rieh collection belonging to St. Petersburg. It is not im- 

 possible, when the abnormal nature of its leaves are considered, that it 

 may be'are unusual state of some of the olher species of the group. Still 

 I should hésita te to say which species it is most closely related to: sofar 

 as the flower goes its nearest ally is C.Ledebouriana but its foliage is very 

 différent and it has the decurved pedicels that characterise all the species 

 of the group except C. diphylla and C. Ledebouriana. 



13. Corydalis Ledebouriana Kar. et Kir. Bufl. Soc. Mose. XIY, 

 377 (1841); foliis sessilibus 3-sectis, omnibus petiolulatis, lateralibus 



