NOMENCLATURE OF ‘LONDON CATALOGUE.’ 811 
982. There is a ber subylaber (sic) described by Mérat, Nouv. 
Fl. Envy. Paris, 73 (1812), but it refers to ~ next species. 
983. Cynoglossum germanicum Jacq. Obs. ii. 81 (1767). _C. mon- 
tanum Lam. Fl. Fr. ii. 277 (1778). C. sy aawene Haenke in Jacq. 
Collect. ii. 77 (1 788). 
3. alae maritima Gray, Nat. Arr. 354 (1821); Don, Gen. 
— - 820 (188 
5. Myosotis palustris Relh. Fl. Cant. 76 (1785) ; Roth, Tent. 
i. 87 (1788); With. Bot. Arr. ed. 3, ii. 225 (1796), Relhan is thus 
eleven years earlier than Wither ring. Var. strigulosa Mert. & Koch, 
Fl. Deutschl. ii. 42 (1826). 
996. M. repens ‘*G. Don MSS. ined.” is the einen given in 
Hooker's ‘ Flora Scotica,’ 67 (1821), 2 this Forget-me-not. Mr. 
Roper points out that Gray, Nat. Arr. ii. 848, for this name, cites 
“Don C at this geo to I Sasstick at present say; could 
it have been a list of the plants George Don was prepared to 
supply? Hooker’s preface is dated April, and som s frontispiece 
to vol. i. is dated November of the same year, 1 
97. M. os org Schmidt a Boém. 26 (1796), is clearly 
earlier than um. 175 
999. M. arvensis Willd. Pr Prod at Berl. 77 (1787), is the earliest 
specific use of Linneus’s vari name arvensis known to me, 
Roth (1788) and Hoffmann (1791) _ later. Nyman refers our 
plant to M. intermedia Link, Enum. Hort. Berol. i. 164, as the 
restricted M. arvensis of Lehm. a i. 92. I hope to give some 
remarks on this set of plants at a later date 
016. . Druce writes, ‘* Solanwn nigrm var. luteo-virescens 
(Gmel.) a a prior name = S. humile Bernh.” [ex Willd. Enum. 
236 (1809 
eet! Linaria Elatina is Miller’s spelling, and it was possibly 
intended by him as an emendation of the old pre-Linnean Elatine ; 
the usual method seems - — first seen the light in Aiton, 
2,1 
? 
1039. Mr. Druce asks we “ies Scrophularia umbrosa Dum. FI. 
Belg. 87 (1827), is not identical with S. alata Gilib, Fl. Lithuan. 
ii. 117 (1781), as Grenier considers, Fl. Jurass. 554. _ 
1051. Veronica persica Poir. Encyc. viii. 642 (1808) = V. 
me 
: arlier 
officinalis, according to Ve ry Pl. Tas auph. 
ante’ ¥: sone 8 Sco Fl. Carn. ed. ay 11 (1772) = V. 
Jruticans Jacq. Enum. Vindob. 2, 200 (1762). Scopoli praises 
Jacquin’s description as thoroughly defining the plant as distinet 
from Scopoli’s frutescen 
1086 7 piece —This was the name used by Linnezus in 
his ‘ PPen Suecus,’ Am. Acad. ii. 236 (1749), but in the first edition 
of the ‘Species Plantarum’ (1753), generally accepted as 
foundation of the binomial nomenclature, it appears as Veronica 
