70 NOTES ON ABBOT’S HERBARIUM. 
neus has also described a trefoil under the same name as, but 
without any reference to, Hudson, and based upon a plant intro- 
duced by Dillenius into his edition of the ‘ Synopsis,’ as ‘‘ observe 
by Mr. Rand between Peckham and Camberwell,” and defined as 
‘« T, pratense purpureum minus, foliis cordatis. Priori [7'. pratense] 
minus est, foliis parvis cordatis, leviter pilosis, floribus pro plantule 
magnitudine majusculis, capitulo nudo, petiolo mend longo insi- 
leu or will t e (tab. xiii. f. 1) help out the resem- 
Blanes, the stipules nate “espeialy unlike those of our plant. It 
is cult to understan at any very de ag meaning was 
attached by Linneus to his own character—‘ T. spicis villosis, 
caule erecto ee foliolis infimis obcordatis ;” adeed, that of 
_ F. squarrosum (Sp. Pl. 1082) roto as suggeste ed by Smith, far 
nearer to the ea: species. Ha indeed, refers Rand's plant 
some details from the description of the genuine Swiss plant, still 
quotes only the so-called purple variety, and, under any circum- 
stances, Hudson’s name has a clear five years’ priority. It is 
characteristic that Smith has no Serves: to Hudson at all in the 
anaes ae under eh plant. 
Too immature to determine with certainty. 
This last name is often qu wot, especially by noes 4? 
botanists, as if Relhan were the authority. The age of 
Smith, both in ‘ English Botany’ ca the ‘ Addenda’ to re ‘Flora 
Britannica,’ is doubtless the origin of the mistake; but a reference 
to Relhan’s own note in the second edition of his ‘ Flora’ (p. 200) 
will not leave much room for hesitation, : it is only reasonable to 
irc that Smith furnished the name as well as the character of 
e plant in question. After givin g the onongh Aan from ‘ cel 
auct. Flor. Brit. MSS.,’ he adds, « Chafa s trium ultimarum 
specierum, a cel. auct. Flor. Brit. ex pnts ae D. Beeke, 
8. T.P. emendati fuerunt; et mihi benevole communicati.” Sir J. 
Hooker’ pitintihed statement that 7. minus, Sin., ‘is the T. filiforme 
of foreign authors ” (Stud. Flora, p. 99) is in strange contrast with 
the opinion of Grenier, ‘‘ Tout le monde étant maintenant d’accord 
sur la plante a laquelle Linné a apo le nom de T. jiliforme, ainsi 
que sur Pega, de cette espéce avec le T. micranthum, Viv., je 
. There is another claim that cannot in strict justice 
be overlooked. gepret appears to have been the first writer in 
our own country to identify the 7. agrarium of English authors 
with 7. procumbens, L. As the plant formerly called procumbens 
was thus left without a name, he created ie it that of 7. dubium, 
and it so stands as a distinct species in his ‘ Flora,’ p. 231 (1794). 
