NOTES ON ABBOT’S HERBARIUM. 71 
Two years later Withering, in the third edition of the ‘ Botanical 
Arrangement ’ oad ~— the T. agrarium of his earlier writings 
into 7. procumbens, the expressed ae ity of Afzelius, but 
without any refeseniae’ a Sibthorp, his former 7. procumbens ranking, 
on mae — heir: as I’. filiforme (see p. 654), ‘he —_ oe 
f 8 r 
doubt that both authors distinguished precisely the same plant, 
and Sibthorp’s name, as the earliest and most expressive, has 
every claim to etn nek subject to the ultimate determination of 
the Linnean procumben 
T. filiforme. Conectly named; but another specimen is 
Medicago lupulina 
Sonchus seeing 1. S. asper, All. (Fl. Ped. no, 814). 
2. S. oleraceus, L. 
Hieracium murorum., B vulgatum, Fr. 
ndu 
Orchis latifolia. "O. incarna 
Serapias latifolia. Epipactis latifolia, Bab. Man. Iam able to 
recognise three woodland species of Epipactis in south-eastern 
Englan 
gian 
i E. latifolia, Bab. M 
latifolia, Hook. Student’ Flora. 
— Boreau, 1. du Cen tre, P- 651. Durand 
can never be confounded when growing sro either of the other 
with F. dad beh ata” ee It is doubtless the LF. violacea with 
“ tufted not creeping ” rootstock of ‘ Topographical Botany’; and I 
believe it to fe the plant of Forbes, badly figured, and with a very 
insufficient description in H. B. 8. 2775. It has of course nothing 
d e E. purpurata of Smith, which, as is sufficien ntly 
evident from the original specimen, was foun ed on a deformation 
the E. media 3. purpurata = the ‘Manual.’ Specimens thus named 
many years back from ertfordshire, under Mr. Babington’s 
inspe oe hergie are certainly ue this plant. . violacea occurs in 
Bucks (Britten), and I have seen specimens from Hertfordshire, 
Hampshire and Northamptonshire. To these Bedfordshire may 
