LATHYRUS TUBEROSUS IN BRITAIN 173 
says* that in May or early June 1860, he had obese ‘‘a single plant 
of Lathyrus tuberosus at Wandsworth steam-boat pier.” This he 
removed to his garden, where it flourished; and, ft the species 
was recorded from Fyfield, he examined sig identified the plant, 
which he had failed to recognize until the 
ere is, indeed, some evidence that the plant had been found 
, a th 
pie’ pe W. W. Newbould ae out} that, in the herbarium 
of asks Rev. , Sem Buddle (a ied 1715), now in the British 
Museum there is a specimen { (which is correctly identified) to 
mide: Buddle evidently refers in his ‘‘ Methodus Nova Stirpium 
ritannicarum,” wherein he says §:—‘I had it from y® Rev* Mr. 
John Sedgwick, who ace it not far from Lincoln, in y® north 
field of Blankney, near y* road to Lincoln.” He identifies it as 
the “ Lathyrus arvensis eam tuberosus, the Pease Earth-nut,” of 
Gerard, Parkinson, and oth rs.|| Again, Mr. Britten has quite 
recently pointed out‘! that cae | is now in the British Museum a 
specimen (also, A yuna quite correctly identified), formerly in 
the herbarium of Samuel Dale (1659-1739), of Braintree, and 
labelled * A. R°® Dt Budile multo resale annis accepi, art as sg 
uffolkis invenit” (I received this, many years ago, fr 
Rev. Mr. Buddle, who found it in the county of Suffolk). Buddle’s $ 
‘‘ Methodus,” which was never published, is in the library of the 
British Museum at Bloomsb 
It is necessary, however, to view with some suspicion both 
these early records. Everyone will recognize that, in the case of 
very old collections, there is always considerable risk ne the 
specimens or their ixbels may have me mixed. In this case, 
too, it will be noticed that _— the gags a associate onc 
in es ways) with the name of o an (namely, Buddle), 
, of course, increases the possibility of error. It is true, no 
dou that Buddle was a careful and cago botanist ; a i 
should not be overlooked that the evidence connecting him 
the case of the Suffolk specimen, we have no statement at all from 
Buddle in regard to it. All we have is a statement by Dale (in 
Phytologist, iv. p. 318 (1860). 
' See English Botany, iii. p. 105 (1864), and Gibson, Flora of Essex, p. 88 
1864). 
{ { Buddle Herbarium, vol. vi. (Herb. Sloane, 119), fo. 23. 
§ Sloane MS. 2978 poe not ge or by G@ ibson], fo. 107b. 
|| This species (whatever y have been) was recorded in Britain and 
by Gerard in 1594 (Herbal, p. 1057). It grew, he says, ‘‘in corne 
fieldes, both ee en, ene te lf, atari ee cee borders of “fields, among 
briers ‘and bram nis gee u 
oT of ma habitat of the lant, have conclude that 6 3 pea in question 
3 bu e doubt that it was really 
ie macrorrhizus, "which also meitliees: tubers - “its it (is pir prem er 
(i tifying it, apparently with L. “opined —- of it ist. ‘arum, i. 
p- 895, 1686) : “tn A "a ena 
I Journal of Botany, 1909, p 
