NOTES ON ABBOT’S HERBARIUM, 43 
altered the name to U. montana, an ta ded a note that the vee of 
With regard to seca other Ulmus, it is now pretty generally 
agreed that U. campestris, Sm., does not represent the ori rigina 
species of Linnwus, which probably was intended to include all the 
European elms, and has no especial reference to a tree which does 
not occur in Sweden Still less can U. suberosa of Ehrhart be 
bark being aiogdin cr absent in typical examples of the small- 
leaved elm. It is true that Willdenow has defined the var. of his 
U. suberosa as with “ ramis levibus,” the lower ones only “e trunco 
vel radice ortis” being “ alato-suberosis ” (Willd. Sp. v.i. p. 1824) ; 
but this is a considerable departure from the original idea of 
Ehrhart, and is har ardly consistent with the phrasing of his own 
Species of Smith or Willdenow original a gered there could be 
no objection to their nomenclature, but in eac ch ¢ ere has been 
i 
the elm  seminaturalised in Britain,” with “ seeds rarely if ever 
ripening” and “ orege! Peso ae ing up suckers,” as U. surcu 
(Stokes, Val , 1812). He gives an excellent haw: 
with full references irs notes as to the distribution of st species, 
and it is strange that the work of so accurate and painstaking a 
botanist should have Sree 80 much overlooked. 
Gentiana campestris. No spec 
The specimen of Bunium pa ‘had been originally ticketed 
as Bulbocastanum. 
* As an instance of be sper careful animus in small matters oo his note, 
E. B. 2161:-—«We ought at U. montana, t. 1887, to have quoted S = Brit. 
282 after Bauh. Pin . 427 ; ;” and charebie before the reference to Wither ing. 
+ The sole distinction bs gba si characters of U. nuda and U. suberosa, 
Eh th. +, Tesides in * rami reacbesie of the former, and “ sub- 
erosis” of the latter. Cf. Willd. Sp. ¥. i, p. 182 , 
