68 NOTES ON SAXIFRAGA. 
regretted that in such cases as this the word ‘‘ nomen”’ should 
not have been added after the name, which I also think should 
have been placed in italics; appearing, as these do, as if known 
and retained species, they must cause much trouble to mono- 
than useless to burden literature with such encumbrances. It 
would appear that such of the names in Schleicher’s list as were 
capable of identification are taken up by Seringe (in DC. Prodr.), 
who cites them with a mark of certainty ; the rest need not be 
resuscitated. 
S. — Nutt. in Torr. & Gray, Fl.N. Amer. i. 573 (1840) and 
n Herb.! (in Mus. Brit.) is omitted from Engler’s monograph. 
S. gan oe should stand as ‘‘ ex D. Don in Trans. Linn. Soe. 
8. faba Br. Brown contributed the description of this plant 
N. Amer. i. 569; it is not mentioned in his collected 
te 
+8, rus Trimen in Gill's ‘ River of Golden Sand,’ ii. 426 o- 
(nomen), and in Herb. Mus. Brit.; Bretsclineider, Hist. 
Bot. Disc. China, 785. This is, as Dr. Bretschneider oe 
the ‘ Saxifraga ~ nova 2 2” of the Index Fl. Sinensis, i. 269. 
Mr. Hemsley (/.c.) says: “ This is very distinct from any other 
Chinese species that SS have seen, and apparently equally sti 
om the new species described by Engler bid we have seen”; 
he diagnoses it: ‘* Folia desunt ; scapus gracilis, nudus, glaber, 
panei iflorus, floribus rubris.” It was collected on Ra-ma-la 
mountain, 14 Aug. 1877 
S. cranunata Li, The following note of the occurrence in a wild 
state of the double-flowered form seems worth transcribing :— 
[This] was found wild by Mr. Joseph Blind, age at Barns, 
who transplanted it into his garden, and afterwards distributed 
it to several curious persons ; since which ‘iis it hath been 
gardens near London, where it is commonly planted in pots, to 
pre epi 8 &e. in the Spring.”—NMiller, Gard. Dict. ed. i. 
1731 
S. incurva Mackay should stand as ‘ex D. Don in Trans. Linn. Soe. 
xiii. 428.” 
S. intermedia Sweet, Hort. Brit. ed.i. 181. This name, retained in 
Ind. Kew., results from the transference by Sweet of Haworth’s 
Chondrosea intermedia, which Haworth (Saxifr. Enum. 11) thought 
was probably a hybrid between S. pyramidalis and S. I ongifolia, 
*S, juniperina Bieb. Fl, Taur.-Cauce. i. 814 (1808) = juniperifolia. 
S. i Haw. Syn. Pl. Suce. 324. This is - obscure Lege 
may be a form of hypnoides. Localized as ‘‘ Eur. aus 
ey Kew., but Haworth, J. c. Says: “T had this plant | oa Mr. 
J. Donn as a Scotch species.’ 
iain 
me epee Ne eT Eg ee I an Oa ae Nan Se es SEE SS Pee Naty Ee Spe nancy 
