NOTES ON ABBOT’S HERBARIUM. 69 
resemble the specimen in question. This, however, agrees exactly 
with an unpublished drawing on which Sowe rby has_ pencilled 
“« Lathyrus sylvestris, by Rey. Mr. Sutton, Lord Eliot’s wood, 
Sydenham in Essex, July 7th, 1792,” a date earlier than that of 
either of the published drawings. aap is no specimen from 
Bedfordshire in the Smithian herbar 
Vicia lathyroides. Exactly Diekeon's 8 ; Hyde Park plant (Hort. 
Sicc. Brit. No. 12), and therefore V. ane tifolia, Reich.* 
Ervum tetraspermum. Vicia hirsuta, Gray. 
Trifolium Melilotus-officinalis, Melilotus altissima, Thuill. (FI. 
Par. 378 ).  M. officinalis, Willd. (En. h. Berol. ii 
denow, ed besides Desrousseauxt had already (Lam. Enc. iv. p. 68) 
established a Melilotus officinalis, his has far more claim to 
represent the Linnean plant, although it has been usually called 
M. arvensis a British authors. This is the plant figured by 
a an unnamed specimen of Tr ifolium aes Huds. 
teas (EL Angl. a = 289, 1762) is haregeceg ed the authority 
for this specific name. It is true that it wili be found in the 
‘Novitie Flore Suecie,’ in the Appendix to the second edition of 
the ‘ Fauna Suecica’ (1761); but ‘ Trifolium medium, Linn. Faun. 
ad alpes ¢ (speci e tamen diversum et in Suecia non obvinm 
Peockatue i propterea alibi apud L. non oceurrit.” (Richter, Codex 
Linneanus, 744). Ido not see, then, how we can call our clover 
T. medium, ‘unless on Hudson’s authority. 
LT. ochroleucum. T'. ochroleucon, 
uds. 
62, in the first edition of the ‘ Flora Anglica,’ Hudso 
he a 
ems not improbable this Vicia may never really hav 
ep in Hyde Park (FI. of Madde: 86), but that the aiieionion of this siti 
the ‘English Flora’ was owing to some inadvertence or confusion of memory 
on the part of Smith. The first notice of Dickson n’s plant is to be found in Eng. 
Bot. i. 30, but the specimen was not pub blished in the fourth fasciculus of hg 
‘Hortus Siceus Britannicus’ until some years later. The oy as to the 
rectness of the name was perhaps first suggested in the third edition of Witheri as 
V. angustifolia, and I cannot help thinking = the station was erroneously 
Tepeated under V. lathyroides, more especially a mith does not refer to any 
authority, 
+ To say nothing of Lamarck himself (Hl. Fr. ed. 1, 595). 
