6 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
added to the confusion by altering “ petioles long” to “ petioles 
short.’” This misdescription is perpetuated in the ninth edition 
of the Manual by Messrs. Groves, and also in Hooker’s Student’s 
Flora (third edition). _Don’s description is also totally in- 
applicable to the Hybrid Oak (Q. Robur x sessiliflora), to be 
described later on. 
I have discussed this matter at some length, as Don’s name 
has led to great confusion in this country; and it is well to make 
it clear that his description of Q. intermedia applies to no plant 
which is worthy of recognition as a species or even a constant 
variety or form. 
II. Quercus Ropur. 
Q. Robur Smith Fl. Brit. iii. 102 (1804). 
Q. pedunculata Willd. Sp. Pl. iv. 450 (1805). 
Q. germanica Lasch in Bot. Zeit. xv. 413 (1857). 
Q. Robur subsp. pedunculata var. communis DC. Prod. xvi. 
2, 8 (1864). 
There can be no doubt that Miller erred in referring the name 
Q. Robur to the Sessile Oak. The reference of Linnzus in Sp. Pl. 
to Bauhin’s Quercus cum longo pediculo, especially as he makes no 
reference to Bauhin’s Quercus latifolia mas que brevi pedunculo, 
is sufficient evidence of this; and there are many other confir- 
ry facts. i i 
Museum Herbarium—the Hortus Cliffortianus is referred to by 
Linneeus (/.¢.)—is the Peduncled Oak. Further, Linneus in another 
wo 
curious mistake has occurred with regard to the specimen 
named Q. Robur in the Linnean Herbarium. This is neither 
Q. Robur nor Q. sessiliflora, but looks like some American species, 
possibly Q. alba L. i 
parts of the world, including America, and supplied specimens to 
Linneus. It ma i « ri 
not accepted for the Peduncled Oak, Miller’s name, Q. femina, 
